Lead Shot Working Group

Lord Kimball: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will reconvene the lead shot working group to assess the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection (Restriction on the Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/2170), as announced on 9th November 1999.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group meeting is planned for Thursday, 30th March 2000 in Bristol. Letters of invitation have already been sent out to a number of organisations covering all interests in this issue.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I see that the invitations were sent out immediately after my Question was put down. Will the Minister bear in mind that, whatever may have been said when we debated the orders, non-toxic bismuth shot has not and will not come down in price? Will the Minister bear in mind that that is causing great hardship to very many shooters? Will she look carefully at the possibility of permitting other tailored non-toxic shot? In addition, will she review the existing order and return to the original designation of listed SSSIs, removing from it the moorland species of snipe and golden plover?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the remit of the working group is specifically to review the Schedule 1 list of sites. Furthermore, the Government would like to discuss other issues relating to the effectiveness of the legislation, including of course the availability of alternative shot, compliance by shooters and police experience. For the benefit of the House, perhaps it may help if I say that the National Farmers Union has been added to the list of consultees. I believe that this morning the NFU agreed to take part in the meeting.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these regulations look as though they were drawn up by someone who would suffer from agoraphobia on Islington Green? Is there not a fundamental error here, in that the restrictions are not related to where the shot falls, but to the species of bird being shot? No harm can come from shooting a duck over a dry meadow, except, of course, to the duck. However, shooting a pheasant over wetland does present a hazard because the shot could fall into the wetlands. Does the Minister agree that the Government have simply got it the wrong way round?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the order covers both specific sites and specific species of birds. I have no doubt that, if the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is widely held, it is exactly the kind of issue that will be raised at the review group meeting. However, given the membership of the original working group, I hardly think that one could claim that a fair cross-section of wide-ranging experience in this field was not present when the order was originally drawn up.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how long the working group has been in existence?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the working group was established once its members had had enough time to gain valid experience of the order. It is due to report in time to influence any possible changes by the start of the shooting season.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kimball referred to the high cost of bismuth. Is the noble Baroness aware that the most effective main alternative to bismuth is, similarly, more than three times the cost of lead shot? That is causing a great deal of distress to many people. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that efforts are being made to develop alternatives which would be less expensive, equally effective and, in my opinion, environmentally friendly? Will the Minister give an assurance that the working group will be entitled to study such alternatives once they have been produced, and to make recommendations accordingly?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that the working group will take into account any representations that are made. I welcome the news that detailed work is being carried out on alternative shot. However, no one should be in any doubt about the damage that can be caused to the environment by the use of lead shot.

Go: Fares Complaint against Lufthansa

Lord Brabazon of Tara: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they intend to take to support the British airline Go in its complaint to the European Commission of alleged anti-competitive behaviour by Lufthansa on the London-Munich route.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, competition between airlines brings real benefits for passengers in terms of value for money and improved choice. UK airlines have a good record in competing energetically and fairly, and we expect all airlines in Europe also to compete fairly. We have not yet received details of this particular complaint from the European Commission. The Commission is required to carry out its investigations in close and constant liaison with member states and we would expect to be consulted by the Commission in due course. We will ensure that Go's legitimate interests are protected. It would be a great pity if, in the meantime, passengers on the London to Munich route ended up paying higher fares.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The allegation is that since Go started trading on this route, Lufthansa has systematically tracked its fares. When Go announced its departure from the route, Lufthansa raised its fare from £59 to £129. However, when Go filed a complaint with the Commission, the Lufthansa fare mysteriously reduced again from £129 to £55. However, is not the real worry that this case could take up to two years to be settled by the Commission? For that reason, will the Government press the Commission to try to deal with the matter more quickly? It is to the long-term disbenefit of both passengers and potential competitors in the airline industry if such complaints take as long as two years to be sorted out.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The complaint was made only on 28th February. As I understand it, the case has yet to be assigned a case officer within the Commission. The first step will be for the Commission to determine whether it is in the interests of the Community for the case to be pursued. Should such an investigation be initiated, it will be conducted in liaison with other member states. It is likely to be several weeks before any papers reach us. However, I agree with the noble Lord that investigations by the Commission can take an unduly long time. If necessary, we will use our best efforts to press the Commission to proceed quickly.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what are the best efforts that the Government are able to make in this regard? Is it not a scandal that Go should be penalised for a period as long as two years? I apologise for not being able to articulate more clearly, but I suffered a stroke on 3rd December. I do not want Go to have a stroke in the interim.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say how pleased we all are to see my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis back in his seat. I am always daunted by having him sitting at my back, staunch friend though he is, because his knowledge is so much greater than mine in these areas.
	It is true that the Commission's investigations can be lengthy. It does have powers to take interim measures against anti-competitive practices where there is clear prima facie evidence of such behaviour. We shall certainly work with Go and do everything we can to ensure that British interests are protected.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's anxiety to curtail the duration of these proceedings, is it not the case that if someone in the United Kingdom notices that someone else is about to undertake an illegal or anti-competitive practice there is recourse to an injunction that has immediate effect and can be proceeded with quickly? Is there an equivalent procedure available within the Community? If not, should not that situation be remedied?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we understand that the Commission has advised Go that it is unlikely that it could take interim measures as predatory pricing is a very difficult allegation to prove. However, noble Lords can be assured that we shall certainly investigate every avenue of recourse for British interests.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British public will not take lightly any suggestion that the Commission can deal with this affair, in so far as it affects Great Britain, at its own convenience? The fact that we have raised a complaint in the matter should be sufficient to ensure that it is attended to immediately, and the Commission should be told so!

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we shall leave the European Commission in no doubt as to the view of this House.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, a single and deregulated market in air traffic in the EU is obviously of benefit to passengers, but we need a much more effective watchdog in such a market. Is it possible for the Government to do more than merely support Go and actually try to ensure that these procedures are made more rapid?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat my assurance that we shall do everything in our power to ensure that these matters are expedited.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the liberalisation of European aviation has produced real benefits for consumers? Does he also agree that the routes where the fares tend to be higher are those on which there is no competition? Does my noble friend further agree that any study of fare structures would show that the routes from London are favourable when compared to those of our competitors?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, liberalisation of the European aviation market has brought great benefits to consumers. Where competition has developed--and here I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for his efforts in such matters while in office--it has often led to substantial price reductions, increased choice and better value for money. In fact, a recent study by the CAA showed that the lowest fully flexible fares from London were among the lowest in Europe.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to answer the main thrust of the courageous, witty and accurate question from his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis; namely, what is there that the British Government can actually do about this matter under the present regulation, apart from making rather pathetic "noises off" as far as concerns the Commission?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I can only reiterate my assurance that we shall use our good offices here to do everything that we can.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the problem on the London to Munich route is an isolated incident, or are other UK low-cost airlines threatened in the same way on other routes? Alternatively, does he think that it is likely that such airlines may be so threatened?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that we have a very robust civil aviation sector in Britain that, in many cases, is better prepared than others on the continent to defend its commercial interests. That is simply because of the commercial acumen that the sector has acquired through being in a more competitive situation. However, there have been incidents in the past where pressures have arisen that we believed might raise some concerns. We shall certainly be vigilant on behalf of Go and the other British airlines.
	British Airways, for example, faces much greater competition on its domestic hubs than Lufthansa might do. BA has about 40 per cent of the slots at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, as against Lufthansa's 60 per cent at Frankfurt and Munich. It is worth noting that the Star alliance in which Lufthansa is involved has still not been investigated by the Commission, although the attempts of BA to set up alliances have been.

Civil Court Fees

Lord Goodhart: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	From what organisations responses have been received to the consultation paper on civil court fees issued by the Court Service in January 2000.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I doubt your Lordships would be best pleased if I took up time literally listing all the organisations which have responded. I shall write to the noble Lord with a comprehensive list. However, 15 interest groups have responded, including the Consumers' Association, the TUC, the Law Society, the Advice Services Alliance and the Civil Courts Users' Association. Ten managers of a range of court groups have responded, as have 12 firms of solicitors and local law societies and six court user organisations and individuals. There has also been an extensive response from the judiciary. The total of 76 responses has therefore been comprehensive.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. What is the Government's response to the call for a moratorium on the proposed increases in civil court fees which has been issued jointly by the Advice Services Alliance, the Consumers' Association, the Law Society, the Legal Action Group, NACAB and the Public Law Project? Does the noble and learned Lord accept the argument put forward by these and other organisations that the proposed increases in the court fees will seriously inhibit access to justice, particularly for those whose incomes are only just over the fee exemption limit?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I do not accept that argument. I shall be signing a new fees order, probably today. It will take effect from 25th April. It is necessary to continue to follow the policy of full cost recovery. I shall listen with great care to the responses to the consultation. I shall publish an analysis of responses by the beginning of April. When I arrive at preliminary policy conclusions, I shall consult on them. However, the government policy of full cost recovery remains.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is quite wrong for access to justice to be seriously prejudiced by excessive civil court fees? Can he tell us the extent to which the number of civil actions has fallen--if it has fallen--since the principle was accepted by the Government that court fees should be sufficiently high even to cover the cost of milk for the office cat?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, let us not forget that the main deterrent to going to law is not court fees but lawyers' fees. To argue that the current level of court fees is a deterrent to litigants is rather like arguing that people are deterred from buying a new car by an increase in vehicle excise duty.
	My present judgment is that there is nothing wrong with a general principle that those who can afford to do so should pay a fair fee for the use of the courts to resolve their disputes. I listened carefully to the representations that were made criticising the allocation fee in defendant claims up to £1,000, and I have recently announced the abolition of that allocation fee.
	The taxpayer, however, pays in full the court fees of parties who are in receipt of a range of benefits: working families' tax credit, disabled persons' tax credit, income support and others. Thus the taxpayer pays in full, or where remissions apply in part, the court fees of those for whom payment of the full fee would constitute undue hardship. Also there are categories of litigation, such as Children Act and domestic violence applications, where the fees are set about 40 or 50 per cent beneath the true cost. We should also remember that the taxpayer pays in full from the Legal Aid Fund the court fees of those eligible for legally aided representation.

Sudan

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy with respect to recent developments in Sudan.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's policy remains focused on achieving a peace settlement beneficial to all Sudanese. We have long supported the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process as the main vehicle likely to achieve this. Now that we have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum we are more able to promote peace and human rights and to aid the humanitarian effort, with the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and other factions. We believe that there is now an opportunity to press for peace and that the international community should do all that it can to pursue that goal.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Is she aware that I have visited areas in western Upper Nile near the oilfields and witnessed at first hand the ethnic cleansing by the Government of Sudan of the African people who live there? They have been subjected to aerial bombardment by helicopter gunships and Antonovs carrying out scorched earth policies in which thousands of homes and many schools, mosques, churches and clinics have been burned to the ground. The United States has adopted a policy of economic sanctions. If the British Government's policy of normalisation of relations does not make them minded to follow that road, will the British Government at least make sure that no British firms are involved in the exploitation of the oil which is being used by the regime to fuel its war against its own people?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government are being assiduous in trying to promote the peace process. We are aware of the concerns about which the noble Baroness speaks and are giving the matter a great deal of attention. The noble Baroness will know that the sanctions in relation to this area are complex and difficult because of the consequences that may flow therefrom for the people of Sudan. We continue to give robust advice to all businesses which seek to work in this area so that they are fully aware of the reality of what involvement means.

The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, mindful of the serious picture which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has painted, and of the strong representations made to me by bishops of the Episcopal Church in Sudan when I met them in Nairobi last month, will the Minister please tell us what practical steps Her Majesty's Government have taken; what practical steps are being taken; and what practical steps the Government propose to take, and with whom, to bring to an end this appalling tragedy and to forward the peace process with the utmost haste?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am delighted to do so, but I first commend to the House all the work that has been done by the Churches in the region which work with great energy and dedication to bring about peace for the Sudan. The UK continues to play a prominent role in pursuit of peace, especially now that we have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum. We have given new political and financial support to the newly revitalised Inter-Governmental Authority on Development--the peace process which I mentioned earlier which is allowing for a sustained and accelerated negotiation. We continue to press for extensions to a partial ceasefire, first agreed during the late Derek Fatchett's visit to the region, which has brought much relief to the people in southern Sudan. Your Lordships will remember that the previous agreement was reached in January. It will continue until April of this year.
	We continue to engage with all sides. The Sudanese Government and Opposition are well aware of our views. On 8th and 9th March our ambassador to Sudan met the SPLA in Nairobi and reiterated our concerns to see the peace talks make progress, in close co-ordination with the head of the secretariat of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, Mr Daniel Mboya. We are involved in newly resumed EU dialogue with the Government of Sudan, a positive but frank forum which addresses the peace process, human rights and democratisation. All our efforts are going into making sure that both sides understand that the true benefit that will flow to the Sudanese people will be the end of this long war. Your Lordships will be aware that the war has gone on for 16 years and over 1.5 million people have suffered. We want to do everything in our power to bring that suffering to an end.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted the reports last week of the bombing of aid agency compounds in the south, particularly those belonging to the American NGO, Samaritans First, and the Irish organisation, Concern, in which it was alleged that two people were killed and a dozen injured? Does she not think that if the Sudanese authorities stopped bombing civilians in the south it would be one of the main contributions towards the achievement of a peace settlement? In pursuance of this objective, what additional measures could be taken to deny them the aircraft and spares coming from eastern Europe, sometimes via third countries such as Yemen? Does the Minister think that the international community has done enough to enforce the arms embargo, particularly when it is being breached by eastern European countries through third countries such as Yemen?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have been very assiduous in highlighting the difficulties in the region. We have given every encouragement to our international partners to be as assiduous as we are in implementing the arms embargo. We shall not cease to make those efforts. The noble Lord will know how dire is the situation. We have a window of opportunity--it is not a great one--and we need to put all our energies into ensuring that we get something viable for all the people of Sudan.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, we welcome very much the contribution from the Bishops' Benches in relation to this matter. There are many persecuted Christians in the Sudan, as there are in other countries. Does my noble friend agree that this is much more the role of the Bishops than is negotiating with the Government without other interested parties on Section 28?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the reality is that we need energy and commitment from every single sector in order to deliver peace. I warmly welcome the energy put into this issue by the Bishops, as indeed I welcome the energy that they have addressed towards Section 28.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, in the context of the visit to the Sudan undertaken by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury some while ago, will the Minister underline the value of that visit and indicate whether she would like a further such visit to be undertaken now?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand that the most reverend Primate will visit Sudan in April. We warmly welcome this initiative and wish him Godspeed.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, while I warmly welcome what has been said so far, I must return to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. Schools and hospitals have been bombed. When a spokesman was challenged about the issue, he said that they had intended to bomb the school. As part of our normalisation efforts and discussions, to what degree do we point out specifically to the Sudanese Government how wholly unacceptable such actions are? Have we involved the Ugandan Government because, after all, Uganda is suffering from an enormous influx of refugees as a result of the conditions in Sudan? Have we turned to the international community generally to support normalisation in terms of expecting rational, civilised behaviour from the Sudanese Government?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's questions in order. We are aware of the reports about the bombs being dropped. We have raised the matter specifically with the Government of Sudan. At this year's UN Commission on Human Rights, an EU-sponsored consensus resolution on Sudan was agreed. It calls on the Government of Sudan to stop immediately the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians and humanitarian centres--actions which run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights and humanitarian law. Our ambassador made this general point on bombing yesterday to the Sudanese Government and at the time of the bombing of the Holy Cross school in Nuba.
	So far as concerns the Ugandan Government, we are aware that they have come to terms with the Sudanese, together with Ethiopia and Eritrea, and we welcome that. It is a difficult issue. As I said earlier, it needs all our efforts. We shall not hesitate to highlight these issues to the Sudanese. It needs the efforts of both north and south because, I regret to say, the honours are equally shared when it comes to unreasonableness.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that with regard to humanitarian aid the main problem in the Sudan has been not the amount of aid donated but ensuring that it reaches those most in need? In the light of the deteriorating situation in the Sudan, what initiatives do the Government intend to take to ensure that NGOs are allowed freely to continue their humanitarian work? As the House will be aware, some 11 foreign aid agencies were forced to suspend their operations and pull out their staff from southern Sudan on 1st March this year after refusing to accept a rebel ultimatum. Secondly, what action do the Government intend to take to build on the important agreements reached last year between the Government of the Sudan, the SPLA and the UN to secure access to certain roads and rail corridors used by aid agencies?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I share the concerns outlined by the noble Lord. We have strongly expressed our concern in relation to the memorandum of understanding which the SPLA sought to make a number of agencies sign--the noble Lord will know that at least 11 of the major agencies refused to sign--and we have given every support to those who have condemned that as a retrogressive step. The difficulties inherent in this situation have been manifest not only in this interchange but in all our dealings with both sides. We shall continue to urge them with great vigour that the Sudanese people need peace and that failing to take advantage of the humanitarian agencies which are willing to commit themselves to the region is a retrogressive step. We shall continue to press the SPLA to address this issue.

Business of the House: House of Lords Investigation

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can set my mind at rest about a matter which seems to me to reflect directly on the right of the House to regulate its own affairs. I caught the end of a news story this morning which seemed to indicate that the matter of a register of interests would be referred for investigation by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee on standards in public life. I also understand that this matter is the subject of a Written Answer today which I have not had the privilege of seeing. Can the Leader of the House reaffirm that whether a reference is made is a matter for a decision by the whole House? As I remember it, the agreement was that before that reference is made the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee?
	Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, first, whether she believes that it is appropriate to refer to the matter by means of an announcement to the press. If it was not an announcement to the press, how did the matter come to be leaked? Secondly, does she believe that it was appropriate for the matter to be referred to by means of a Written Answer? Thirdly, has the matter been discussed at all by the Procedure Committee? Fourthly, does the noble Baroness intend to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee and then to refer any report that may result from its discussion to a decision of your Lordships' House before it is referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the decision on how your Lordships' affairs should be addressed must rest unequivocally with your Lordships and with no one else.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be helpful if I speak to one or two matters at this stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranborne for raising this matter. It is an issue of great importance which lies at the heart of the sovereignty of this House of Parliament. It is an issue which, I must admit, I missed. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, in the middle of last week informing me that he was to undertake an investigation of this House. I replied almost immediately pledging the co-operation of the official Opposition in any inquiry that he makes.
	My noble friend has raised a far more important issue; namely, how it is that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, is conducting the inquiry without reference to this House. Has the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had discussions with either the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Chairman of Committees in order to ensure that the proper procedures have been followed? I have it in mind that when the issue was raised previously it was dealt with by another Member of this House, the distinguished noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who set up his inquiry on the advice of the Procedure Committee, which was approved by this House. The report was ultimately approved by the House and was put into effect.
	I should also like to take up the matter of the Written Question. I understand that there is an article in today's Independent. I failed to see it; however, I did catch the tail-end of a news report on the radio this morning. I am sure that the Government had nothing to do with it. I suspect that this slipped out of the committee of inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, rather than this House. Is a written statement really the best way to proceed on this matter? Would it not have been much better for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to come to the House to make an oral Statement so that it could be discussed and debated?
	This provides me with an opportunity to ask the noble Baroness for a debate before this matter goes much further--or at least for the matter to be referred to the Chairman of Committees, who would no doubt decide which was the best committee to discuss the issue.
	Will the noble Baroness also confirm--she may not know the answer now--that my noble friend Lord Cranborne is right in saying that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Neill, reports on, it will be up to this House to decide how best to proceed?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the points that they have raised. Like them, I was surprised by what I heard on the BBC this morning. I have not read the article in the Independent to which the noble Lord referred. I understand that it was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, at a much earlier stage in his proceedings that he was planning to examine the arrangements in this House in much the same way as he had done in relation to another place. At that stage, it was agreed that the understanding was that that was appropriate.
	Like the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, indicating that this was the next stage of his inquiry into the affairs of Parliament. I replied, indicating the Government's ready acquiescence in such an inquiry. The practices that the noble Lord suggests should be followed are ones which we on these Benches have for some time encouraged Members of this House to follow voluntarily.
	At that stage I also suggested, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that it was obviously appropriate--and I am sure that he had already done so--to consult the noble Lord and other Members of this House about proceeding with this matter. If some more formal procedure should be undertaken based on precedent, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has indicated, I am willing to look into that and to take the matter further in any way that is appropriate. The activities of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee are completely independent of the Government. I thought that he had made the appropriate consultative arrangements with other leading Members of this House as he did with me. As I say, if the noble Viscount says that on the basis of precedent some other proceedings should be followed, I am extremely willing to look into that and to discuss it with both the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and other leading Members of the House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who ought to know more about this than I do, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to remind us whence spring the powers of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to investigate this House. Assuming that they have been granted by this House already, it seems that the difficulty is a small one. If they have not, surely it is not appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to approach either the Government or the Opposition; it is the House as a whole that has to be approached. That can be done only by one of the committees nominated for the purpose or by a Statement and debate in the House.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my informal understanding is that the noble Lord's original proposition is correct. If on consultation with the House authorities I am proved wrong, I shall of course make sure that that procedure is followed, as I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 25) be agreed to.--(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	1. Freedom of information: applicability to the House of Lords
	Parliament is included in the list of public bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. The Bill would enable the authorised officer of each House to refuse to disclose information either on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. In the House of Lords the authorised officer is the Clerk of the Parliaments. In the case of other public bodies, the Bill provides that a dissatisfied applicant for information can appeal to the Information Commissioner. But there will be no such appeal in the case of Parliament. In the interests of equity the Committee recommends that the House should have a mechanism to consider whether a refusal by the Clerk of the Parliaments to disclose information is reasonable.
	The Committee recommends that in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs he should ask applicants whether they accept his decision or whether they wish him to reconsider. If he is asked to reconsider, he should refer the matter to a panel of members of the House for advice. The panel should consist of 5 persons, chaired by a Lord of Appeal or a retired Lord of Appeal. The other members should include a representative from each of the parties and the Crossbenches. The panel should have the assistance of the Information Commissioner.
	2. Scrutiny of amendments at committee and report stage
	The Committee considered how major new amendments tabled at report stage could be scrutinised properly, given the restrictions on debate at that stage. The Committee reminds the House that whole Bills or certain clauses or schedules may be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House at any time between committee and third reading. Recommitment allows the House to give further detailed consideration to a Bill or certain parts of it without the limitations that apply on report and at third reading. In addition the Committee recommends that, in order to improve the scrutiny of legislation, the House should whenever possible have the benefit of a further report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, if appropriate, on any significant amendments containing delegated powers tabled to a Bill after the committee's initial report.
	3. Starred Questions
	The Committee agreed that the Clerk of the Parliaments should inform the House at the beginning of Question Time when he knows that a Starred Question on the Order Paper is not to be asked.
	4. Revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders
	The Committee was informed that a comprehensive revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders was being undertaken. The Committee recommends that for the convenience of members the new edition should be in two volumes. Volume 1 should be an essential practical guide to conduct and procedure in the Chamber; volume 2 would contain more technical information. Both volumes would carry the same authority. The Committee will appoint a small sub-committee to undertake detailed examination of the revised text.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I have a brief query. Paragraph 1 of the report contains the reference:
	"in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice".
	In a long and undistinguished life in public service I have managed all these years, as has everyone else, without the phrase, "is minded". What does it actually mean? Surely there is a phrase in common usage which can be employed instead. Otherwise, we are just falling into the spin doctors' trap.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Select Committee report informs the House that Parliament is included in the list of public bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. I am not aware that the Bill in its final form has come before this House. I should very much like to examine the Freedom of Information Bill before I am prepared to consider the proposition that is reproduced at paragraph 1 of the report. The paragraph states that,
	"The Bill would enable the authorised officer of each House to refuse to disclose information either on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs".
	I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the last part of the sentence referring to the "effective" conduct of public affairs. Public affairs can be conducted very effectively but not necessarily properly. I should have thought that it would have been far better to have inserted the words, "proper conduct of public affairs".
	The second part of the paragraph states that,
	"The Committee recommends that in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, he should ask applicants whether they accept his decision or whether they wish him to reconsider".
	I give way to no noble Lord in this House in my very great respect for the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is of enormous assistance to everyone and whose reputation, and indeed strength, is well known to us all. I should have thought, on the whole, that before we commit ourselves to approving the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, we might also refer the matter to the Committee for Privileges. The privilege of this House to receive information of one kind or another is a vital issue.
	We are presently witnessing--as I have attempted to show on a number of occasions and hope to be spared to do so on a few more occasions--the progressive erosion of parliamentary powers from outside the United Kingdom. I therefore suggest that we return the report to the Select Committee on Procedure, together with as polite an indication as possible--copied to the Clerk of the Parliaments--that we should prefer this matter to be considered after detailed consideration has been given to the Freedom of Information Bill.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, at the end of the report reference is made to an examination of the Companion to the Standing Orders with a view to possible revision. Can the Chairman of Committees tell the House the object of that possible revision? Who is to conduct it, and will Members of the House be invited to comment before it is published?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I was not aware that the terminology to which he refers was the invention of spin doctors, whatever they may be. The term has historic connections with judicial proceedings and is frequently used by both noble and learned Lords and others of lesser standing within the justice system. Your Lordships may feel that it has impeccable origins. I do not believe that I can help the noble Lord further.
	I turn next to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He quoted the words,
	"effective conduct of public affairs",
	in paragraph 1 of the report and suggested that the term "proper" might more properly be substituted. The words used by the committee in its report have been taken from the Bill itself. The proposal in paragraph 1 of the report was given careful consideration by the Procedure Committee before the decision was taken. It was thought that this was a proper way to proceed.
	I do not believe that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in regard to his suggestion that these matters should be deferred until the Bill has been considered. I would have thought--I am sure that I speak for the committee--that it was right for these matters to be considered by your Lordships' House at the earliest possible moment. There was no doubt within the Procedure Committee that this provision was required and that it was right and fair to all concerned. I would, therefore, commend to your Lordships this proposal along with the others in the report.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [The Council]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and one as Chief Executive, a post which shall subsequently be appointed by the Council as set out in Schedule 1 to this Act").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 1 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6. I understand that Amendment No. 8, which is grouped with my amendments, is to be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
	Amendment No. 1, which seeks to include on the face of the Bill a reference to the subsequent appointment of the post of chief executive as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, does no more than bring the arrangements into line with those for the chairman. The Minister gave no reason why it had been found necessary in Clause 1 to say that a member of the council should be appointed chairman but not that a member should also be appointed chief executive. Both should appear in either the schedule or in Clause 1, with subsequent detailed arrangements being dealt with in the schedule. Therefore, the amendment is tabled merely as a matter of consistency.
	Amendment No. 2 is about the appointment of the chairman and ensures that he is a person with current or recent non-public business experience who commands national respect. The amendment adopts the Minister's own words. The Government intend that the individual should be someone from business who is nationally respected. Given that there is a great deal of minutiae on the face of the Bill, which will increase some of the concerns of business and commerce about the council, it is important that this should also be made explicit.
	Amendment No. 3 is about the composition of the Bill, and it, too, is a matter with which the Government should have no difficulty. The Government have made it clear both informally and formally that 40 per cent of the members of the national council and of the local councils should include people from the business community. It is essential that that appears on the face of the Bill. At each stage of the Bill business and commerce have re-emphasised the importance of seeing something like this on the face of the Bill. Both we and business and commerce are conscious that the training and enterprise councils, which will go out of business as a result of the Bill and government policy, are to lose membership of those bodies. At the moment, they comprise two-thirds of the membership, which will reduce as a result of the Bill. In order to steady any nerves about the legislation, it is important that that should be made explicit on the face of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 4 provides that,
	"Not less than 20 per cent. of the members shall be nominated by the Local Government Association".
	I listened to what the Government said at an earlier stage and have read what they have said since. They are concerned about prescribing so much of the composition on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I have reduced the figure from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. I feel strongly that there should be representation on the body and that it should be made explicit in some form on the face of the Bill.
	The concern is that the Government say all the right things. I have been present at a number of meetings where Ministers have explained their intentions, but very little in the Bill bears out those intentions; much of it is left to chance. If in addition to some of the comforting statements one accepts what the noble Baroness has said constantly--that it will be a matter for Nolan--if Nolan does not make the recommendations, that will not happen. In order for the Government to make that happen--in other words, to say to Nolan that they mean that there should be 40 per cent representation by business and local government--it is important that, even if that is subject to Nolan procedures, that matter is made explicit on the face of the Bill.
	There will be some argument about Amendment No. 4, but I hope that there will be none about Amendment No. 3 which represents the Government's declared intention. The Government have been less explicit about local government representation. The only explicit statement that we have had from the Minister in another place, Mr Wicks, is that there will be one local government representative on each of the councils, both national and local.
	Amendment No. 5 proposes that,
	"The chairman shall be appointed for a period of not less than three years and not exceeding five years".
	We have again taken the Minister's declared intention that there should be a properly recognised term of office. The Minister will notice that the amendment does not say that the person shall be reappointed, but that the appointment should be for a period of not less than three years and not exceeding five years. All of that is subject to the chairman not making an awful gaffe whereby he or she may have to be dismissed in a shorter period of time, but the appointment itself should be made for a specific period, and that should be properly understood by the person who accepts the post.
	Amendment No. 6 makes grammatically explicit on the face of the Bill that the reference is not to "a member". I understand that the present wording is counsel-speak. Counsel always knows what he or she means by a word. However, given that business, commerce, local authorities and other interested parties--for example the voluntary sector and so forth--need to understand what these words mean, it is right that each member appointed to a relatively small national council should bring to it skills and experience which are relevant to the work of that body. That should be required not of "a member", or of "any member", but of "each member".
	Perhaps I may say in passing that there will be some concern if at the end of the day the Government take the view that the membership should be 12 and not 16 members. If two of the posts are already taken up by the chairman and chief executive, there will be only a very small number of people to represent all the interests. I am aware that today noble Lords will propose that other interests should be represented on the council. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification as regards construction. I speak to all amendments within the grouping. Do the functions and duties under Clause 1, Schedule 1 and Clause 2 apply where the local authority is not a local education authority? Moving Amendments Nos. 150 and 152 in Committee the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made plain that they applied only where the local authority was a local education authority. I can see the logic of that. This morning I asked half a dozen noble Lords with greater knowledge of education than I possess and no one knew the answer. As a matter of principle, it would be a good idea to see where we are going at the outset. I hope that the Minister will take the matter on board.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Tope and myself. We moved a somewhat similar amendment in Committee stressing that it was a minor proposal aimed at preventing the learning and skills council being dominated by a self-perpetuating clique. The amendment seeks to limit the normal term of the chairman's appointment to no more than two terms. It is somewhat similar to Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which seeks to limit the period for which the chairman shall be appointed to not less than three years and not exceeding five years. Our amendment is slightly different. We seek to limit the normal period to two terms. It echoes the reply that we received from the Minister in Committee.
	Although recognising that stability and membership build up a team spirit and strengthen bonds between members, they can also lead to conservatism and entrenched attitudes. It is always good for an organisation to be challenged from time to time. We are worried that, as drafted, Schedule 1 allows the chairman to continue indefinitely. We want to ensure that that does not occur. The Minister stressed in Committee that the general rule set out in the code of practice for public appointments was that members and chairs would normally serve for a maximum of two terms but that exceptions were allowed. That is good. However, the very fact that it is normal practice suggests that the provision should be incorporated on the face of the Bill. It is for that reason that we again bring forward an amendment in a slightly altered form.
	Perhaps I may comment on the noble Baroness's six amendments. We have some sympathy with Amendment No. 1 in relation to the chief executive serving on the council. However, we accept, as the Minister stated on the last occasion, that chief executives sit on the research councils, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Further Education Funding Council, and that that provides a precedent. It is not essential.
	We have less sympathy with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. We feel that they are too prescriptive. It would be wrong for such a clear proportion of the council to be dominated by one forum or another. We have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment No. 4. It is right that local government should be represented on the learning and skills council. Amendment No. 5 is very close to our own amendment. It seeks the same end.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I set down a marker that I am concerned about the degree of prescription in membership that Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 envisage. I am not happy about the Bill moving more and more strongly towards making provision simply about education and training for employment. If we consider the figures, 60 per cent would be predicated to education and business. My calculation is that 60 per cent of 16 is 9.6--that is 10 members, plus the chairman and chief executive. It leaves only four members to be selected from other disciplines and backgrounds.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am puzzled by Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It simply replicates provisions already in Schedule 1. In Committee, the noble Baroness seemed to suggest--she repeated the suggestion today--that provisions in a schedule have somehow less force than provisions in a clause. That is not the case. If provisions are in a schedule they are still part of an Act when it is enacted and, therefore, have statutory power. It is simply not the case that they have less force if they are in a schedule. It means that the chief executive will be no less a creature of statute than the chairman.
	I do not believe that the chief executives of, for example, the Further Education Funding Council or the Higher Education Funding Council, for which the noble Baroness's own government legislated in 1992, felt slighted because their appointments were contained within schedules to the relevant legislation. Nor, I am sure, do the chief executives of any of the regional development agencies. The Bill does exactly what earlier legislation did--legislation of the government of which the noble Baroness was a member.
	As to Amendment No. 2, I fully support the wish of noble Lords that the business sector should play a major role in the LSC's strategic decision-making and planning. That is exactly why I sought to reassure noble Lords during Second Reading and in Committee that the national chair and most local chairs will have significant business or commercial experience.
	I set out the reasons for those commitments to business at an earlier stage. However, it does not follow that we should incorporate such commitments on the face of the Bill. As I mentioned before, there is an obvious problem of definition with the terms "business" or "non-public sector"--I am not entirely sure how they would be defined, and what would happen in a court case if there were argument on the definition--and "national respect". I am sure that many Members of this House are the subject of great national respect, but some people might debate that.
	We have discussed at great length the issues in Amendment No. 3. I made clear at Second Reading and in Committee that the Government want and are fully committed to ensuring that the business sector should play a major role in the strategic decision-making and planning that the LSC undertakes.
	In response to the Committee stage debates, the CBI welcomed,
	"the Government's commitment to business involvement; and the fact that the LSC will take account of the sectoral skills needs of industry".
	I could repeat the assurances and commitments given in Committee, but since the CBI has noted and warmly welcomed our commitments, I hope that the noble Baroness can do the same. I do not believe that there is any need to put this provision on the face of the Bill. Nor am I aware of pressure from elsewhere that it should be on the face of the Bill.
	Turning to Amendment No. 4, I accept that the noble Baroness now seeks to secure a quota of 20 per cent rather than 25 per cent, thereby allowing more representation of other groups. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that if we have too many percentage quotas on the face of the Bill, the situation will become inflexible. It could lead to difficulties when we have to take into account other people and bodies which must be represented on the learning and skills council.
	I reassure noble Lords once again that local authorities will have a major role in the new arrangements. As we shall hear later, we are looking to strengthen the framework for consulting local authorities on local LSC plans. They will be central partners not only in securing and providing learning opportunities in schools and through adult and community learning, but also as organisations which can provide vision and leadership for local communities. I believe that they have an important role.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked about definitions. I am not sure about the relevance of that to these clauses, but wherever the Bill specifies "local education authority", it refers only to local education authorities. Where it refers to "local authorities", it can include LEAs as well as district councils. I hope that that answers his question.
	As I said previously, if a suitable individual with current local government experience were appointed to the council, that would serve to strengthen the links with the LGA. However, it would be wrong to specify the number or to guarantee a quota of places for the LGA and its representatives. In any case, we do not want members of the council to be delegates or nominees of any particular organisation. Members of the council, wherever they come from, should serve the interest of the council as a whole,
	I accept the principle behind Amendment No. 5, which is that the period of the term of office of the chairman will be between three and five years. That is in line with guidance from the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which we have made a public commitment to follow. But setting that in stone in the legislation would make no allowance for exceptional circumstances in which, for some reason, we may need to appoint a chairman for a different period of time. For instance, the principle would not allow the short-term appointment of a chairman to see through a period of change before a longer-term appointment could be made. We need to retain flexibility in these matters.
	As regards Amendment No. 6, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has felt the need to return to the issue. In Committee, I gave the noble Baroness a full explanation of the reason why Clause 1(3) was so drafted. By way of reply, the noble Baroness launched into what I thought was an unnecessary attack on parliamentary counsel, accusing them of pedantry. The noble Baroness is insisting that Clause 1(3) be amended so that the indefinite article "a" is replaced by the adjective "each". Without wishing to be pedantic myself, I simply repeat that the legal effect of the amendment would be precisely zero. That is because under Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978,
	"unless the contrary intention appears ... words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular".
	Therefore, the effect of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act is that, when Clause 1(3) sets out to what the Secretary of State must have regard in appointing "a" member, it applies to his appointment of all members. I hope that with that assurance, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not feel the need to press her amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. She said that she had answered my question. Perhaps before she leaves the matter I may respectfully say that she did not. The answer to my question is either "yes", "no" or "do not know". I do not want to press the noble Baroness now, but will she be good enough to read Hansard and answer my question, which is specifically related to Clause 1, Schedule 1 and Clause 2? That is all I ask.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I shall be happy to do that.
	Perhaps I may return to the effect of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act. When Clause 1(3) sets out to what the Secretary of State must have regard in appointing "a" member, it applies to his appointment of all members.
	Amendment No. 8, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to limit the number of terms which a member of the LSC may serve. With regard to the tenure of members, the Government have stated that they will adhere to the guidelines set out in the code of practice for public appointments. The last thing that they would want to see is people permanently in such jobs. Of course there must be fresh blood and limits to the length of time that chairmen and others may serve, but the code of practice for public appointments states that chairs and members should normally serve for a maximum of two terms.
	However, I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a member's final term may need to be extended. That might happen, for example, when a degree of stability is needed due to a large number of members simultaneously reaching the end of their period of office, or a large number of resignations taking place for some reason. The guidance allows for such exceptional circumstances. However, setting the provision in legislation raises difficult questions of interpretation; for instance, what "normally" means and so forth. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, will accept our clear and repeatedly expressed intentions on those issues of appointment and that we shall be bound by the relevant guidance. I hope that with those assurances they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. She totally missed the point as regards the first amendment. It asks why it has been thought necessary to provide in Clause 1 that the council shall include a chairman and not a chief executive and why it has been thought fit to provide in the schedule that it shall include a chief executive and not a chairman? Furthermore, the schedule includes references to subsequent appointments.
	One of the weakest defensive arguments ever to be used by a Minister--I am culpable and probably used it myself--is to say, "It has always been done like this and we shall continue with it". I am afraid that that is not an answer.
	As regards the noble Baroness's disparaging comments about me using the words "commands national respect", I took them verbatim from col. 539 of Hansard. They were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on 8th February and I thought that if they were good enough for him, they were good enough for me and for the consideration of this House.
	I understand what the noble Baroness said about the term of office not being set out on the face of the Bill. It is helpful to have the Government's explanation on the record. However, will reference be made to the term of office in any job advertisement or job description for the post?
	As regards the definite article, yes, we are becoming a little pedantic, but so often lay people must make sense of legalese. I make no apologies for being slightly critical of counsel, who write for counsel readers. The truth is that when the law is interpreted, it must have a practical meaning to those who implement it. However, as the noble Baroness said, although the indefinite article subsumes the plural, what happens when it is meant to mean only the singular? What happens when the indefinite article is meant to include the plural? What, then, does "council" suggest? There are occasions in legislation when "a" is used to mean a specific person, one thing or one aspect of a Bill. Therefore, the indefinite article becomes appropriate. However, to say that it always includes the plural is, frankly, not right.
	I am not entirely happy with the answers. As I said, no reason has been given as to why the chairman and chief executive have been treated differently. It is possible that a person who reads Clause 1 will understand that a council will have 12 to 16 members, one of whom will be a chairman, and that that will be the only prescribed post. It is not until one reads almost to the end of the Bill that one finds, hidden away in a schedule, that another post of the council is prescribed to be held by the chief executive. I believe that that is unfortunate. They should either both be on the face of the Bill in Clause 1 or both in the schedule together so that no one is left, as I am, wondering why they should be treated differently, even if that has been the case in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) Not less than 40 per cent. of the members shall be persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience.").

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 133.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 1, line 15, at end insert--
	("( ) In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and to include those with an understanding of or an interest in achieving social inclusion and equality of opportunity in relation to race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion.").

Lord Tope: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56, which seeks to amend Amendment No. 55, on which it would be appropriate for me to comment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66 and Amendment No. 101, which seeks to amend Amendment No. 100, on which I shall comment, and to Amendment No. 116. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 63, which I see now that I have had wrongly grouped with this amendment. That is a different issue. I shall deal with Amendment No. 63 when we reach it in the normal course of business. I apologise to your Lordships if that causes any confusion.
	This group of amendments deals with the whole issue of equality of opportunities. I find it a rather surprising omission from the Bill as published. Indeed, it is a surprising omission after we have been through the Committee stage, for which I take my share of responsibility.
	I welcome government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100. They are a little late, but better late than never. They are also rather limited, as I shall comment later. But it is a welcome recognition that the issue of equality of opportunity goes wider than the issue of disability, important though that is.
	Amendment No. 7 deals with membership of the learning and skills council. It requires the Secretary of State to,
	"have regard to the need to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and to include those with an understanding of or an interest in achieving social inclusion and equality of opportunity",
	in determining the overall membership of the council.
	We have said consistently from these Benches that we feel that it is wrong to be prescriptive about the proportions which should make up the membership. But if the Government are serious--and I believe they are--about tackling social inclusion and promoting equality of opportunity, it is important that the learning and skills council is seen to be representative of the whole population and the whole community; that it cannot be seen or perceived as, at worst, a white male business-dominated body. The membership should reflect all parts of our community and there should be confidence in it.
	Amendment No. 56 relates to the welcome amendment from the Government. The government amendment, to which I imagine the Minister will speak in a moment, deals with important areas of race, gender and disability but ignores or omits any reference to the other categories of discrimination as now defined within the European Union--those of sexual orientation, age and religion.
	I recognise that to talk about sexual orientation in relation to this Bill or any other is perhaps a sensitive issue but, whatever differing views we take, none of us has been in favour of discrimination on those grounds. Not to deal with discrimination on grounds of age in a Bill which deals with lifelong learning seems to be particularly wrong, as is the case in relation to religion. I can only assume that as those categories are now well recognised and always included together, as they are in the Greater London Authority Act, it was an accidental omission. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it was not the Government's intention to omit them and that either this amendment will be accepted or they will bring forward their own amendment to recognise that omission.
	Amendment No. 66 simply applies the provisions of Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 to local councils, which is not the case at present either in the Bill or in the amendments tabled by the Government. Again, I cannot believe that the Government intentionally meant to apply the provisions of the Bill only to the national council and not equally to the local councils. The Government may well say that by applying it to the national council it is implicit that it applies to the local councils. But I believe that it should be explicit.
	We are told that local councils will be business dominated. While I know that there are many business people who have the social inclusion agenda uppermost in their minds and are strongly committed to equality of opportunity, that is not always immediately associated with local business-dominated bodies. It is desirable that we should have on the face of the Bill the same requirement for local councils as we shall have for the national council.
	Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 simply repeat that for the Welsh council and I need not repeat myself on that.
	Amendment No. 116 relates to Clause 52 which requires the adult learning inspectorate to keep the Secretary of State informed about a number of matters listed in the Bill. This amendment adds to those the requirement to keep the Secretary of State informed of whether provision of education and training within its remit accords with the principle of equal opportunities. In other words, it puts a duty on the adult learning inspectorate also to report on that aspect.
	I welcome the Government's tentative step in the direction of equality of opportunity within this Bill. But I believe that this group of amendments, as a whole, represents a rather more significant stride towards ensuring that equality of opportunity is available to all members of our community and that achievement of that aim will be a principal objective of the learning and skills council and the adult learning inspectorate at national and local level. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I welcome Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 most enthusiastically. I was extremely pleased when the Minister said in Committee that she hoped to return with an amendment at a later stage. I admit that when it had to fit in with issues of race and sex equality as well, I wondered whether the amendments would appear in time for Third Reading. But the amendments are here and they have encompassed more than my original proposed amendment and it is only Report stage. Therefore, I thank the Minister and her officials and congratulate them on having accomplished that. It is excellent that the amendments address race and sex equality as well as the position of disabled learners and that they require the councils to report on their arrangements to promote that equality.
	I have not yet heard what the Minister has to say but I believe that she will stress that although the duty relates to disabled learners as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act, in fact it must be taken in the context of Clause 13, with the wider definition of learning difficulties, which is extremely important. However, I shall wait to see what she says about that.
	With regard to the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I understand absolutely what he is saying. I agree that we should offer equality of opportunity in relation to sexual orientation, religion and age. As the Minister probably cannot accept the amendment, I wonder whether some encouraging words and perhaps some mention in guidance will satisfy him for the moment. I feel a bit of a wimp saying that because I remember in the days before the DDA my irritation at having to be content with a line in Hansard, whereas provisions relating to sex and race discrimination were included in the Bill. However, having done my wimpish bit, I return to Amendments No. 55 and 100, to which I give three hurrays.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend on the Front Bench come to reply, will they clarify what they mean by "persons of religion"; I believe that that, or something similar, is the term used? I wonder whether they would include people who do not have a religious belief. On the surface, it seems a contradiction to discuss religion and non-religion in the same breath. I believe that it is what has come to be called in modern parlance a "catch-22 situation". In other words, people who do not have a religious view find it impossible to put forward their point of view.
	I raise the point because for some time now opinion polls have shown that between 25 and 30 per cent of people do not hold a religious point of view. That percentage is increasing. That is a substantial minority. I believe that I am right in saying--my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm this--that on the permanent committee on religious education there is at least one person who is either an atheist, humanist, agnostic or does not have any religious belief. It seems to me that in modern times that factor should be considered. These amendments lend themselves greatly to the point I am making. I hope that some assistance and clarification will be provided at the end of the debate.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I appreciate the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. Of course, it is difficult to have a negative idea without a positive idea. The noble Lord's tight religious education in a state school in Durham is what has produced his agnosticism. One cannot teach non-religion without teaching religion. In other words, we all agree that people should be aware of their religious background, even if they reject it. I wonder whether the noble Lord is asking Her Majesty's Government to ask schools to teach non-religion, particularly to the 16 to 18 age group. I am rather puzzled, because one gets into something of a morass there.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am unhappy about the amendments. The reason is not because I do not believe in equality of opportunity, which I understand to mean fairness to the underdog, but because the amendments limit equality of opportunity only to certain categories of people. I need not go into detail, but the Minister's amendment is limited only to racial groups, women and the disabled. Why should it be that equality of opportunity is limited only to those with the loudest voice? Plenty of other groups in our society are desperately underprivileged and are entitled to the same level of equal opportunity. If Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, were to be accepted, I should be minded to table an amendment at Third Reading to remove the words,
	"in relation to race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion",
	because the provision reads perfectly well without them. It would then state:
	"In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and to include those with an understanding of or an interest in achieving social inclusion and equality of opportunity".
	I cannot see why other amendments in this group should not be amended in the same way.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 55. Naturally, I am delighted that it is set alongside the duty to have regard to the needs of all students with learning difficulties or disabilities, reinforcing the need to pursue actively the equalisation of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled learners. That duty is certainly a cause for optimism; optimism that the council will start off with the right intentions and that the councils will deliver for all learners at risk of exclusion or discrimination. The clause sends a clear message from government of their expectations. It is a message which I fully support.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to begin with government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 before I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for their support for the amendments.
	We want the LSC and the CETW to ensure that learning opportunities of high quality are available to meet the needs of all learners across the whole range of abilities and aptitudes. In addition, it will be critical that the councils are able to combat the disadvantages that some learners and potential learners genuinely face. As new bodies, we want the LSC and the council in Wales to show the way to all public organisations in building equality of opportunity into all their policies, programmes and actions.
	In December, we set out in the LSC prospectus what that would mean in practice. We expect the LSC to draw up an equal opportunities strategy including targets and performance indicators to tackle both under-representation and under-achievement. Vital to that strategy will be the principle that policies and funding take account of the different characteristics of learners, such as race, gender and disability. The LSC will benchmark the equal opportunities performance of each of the local councils. It will encourage all providers to take positive steps to widen participation and will promote equal opportunities through marketing its activities. We are already working closely with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission to prepare for what I am sure noble Lords will agree is a challenging agenda. We expect the LSC to continue the close liaison that we are now establishing.
	Against the background of that firm commitment to measures to promote equality of opportunity, I was keen to respond quickly and positively to the important amendments debated in Committee on provisions for disabled people. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said about what was perhaps an unfortunate omission. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, also proposed that the LSC should have a duty in respect of the promotion of equality for disabled learners. Clause 13 already makes specific provision for the wider group of people defined as those with learning difficulties. We shall also be bringing forward new rights to prevent discrimination against disabled learners in our forthcoming Bill addressing disability in education. However, I said that I would consider further whether an additional duty would be helpful in that area.
	As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Government are committed to ensuring that all public bodies take a lead in promoting equal opportunities. We announced last November that we would place that obligation in legislation as soon as parliamentary time permitted. Our aim is to take a consistent approach across all public bodies. It would have been preferable to wait for a suitable legislative vehicle where the same duty could have been applied to all public bodies. However, as noble Lords know, we shall be introducing a duty in respect of race equality alone in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and I appreciate the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Those arguments, together with the fact that the learning and skills council is a new body, mean that a duty to promote equality is desirable at this stage.
	On reflection, therefore, we decided that it would better represent the broad thrust of government policy for equality in public bodies to go further than the noble Baroness's amendment and, through government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100, to place the councils under a duty in respect of race and gender as well as disability. We have also gone further than the noble Baroness's amendment in requiring the LSC and the CETW to provide annual reports giving details not only of what they have done to promote equal opportunities in the past year, but also what effect those measures have had and the steps which the councils intend to take in the following year. That is an important way of monitoring and publicising the work and effectiveness of the LSC and the CETW in this important area.
	There is one important point which I should make clear about the work of the LSC and CETW for people with disabilities. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, shares with me the view that, while it is sensible to address equality provisions towards the group of people who are defined as "disabled" under the Disability Discrimination Act, in the sphere of education law we must take account of the needs of the wider group of people who have difficulty in getting access to education. These are defined in the Bill, as they are in the current Further and Higher Education Act, as persons with learning difficulties. The full effect of the duty of the LSC to address the needs of people with disabilities is seen only when Clause 13 and this new Clause 14 are taken together. I hope and believe that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will welcome this approach.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 56 and 101. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wishes to extend the provisions of the duty of equality to other groups who might experience barriers in securing learning opportunities. The LSC prospectus already makes clear that the LSC will have a comprehensive approach to the needs of all learners. Perhaps I may give a few more examples. We shall require the LSC to have a wide-ranging equal opportunities strategy and action plan. We will want the LSC to use performance indicators to set targets to tackle under-representation and under achievement by any group; to mainstream equal opportunities in all its policies and programmes; to encourage all providers to take positive steps to widen participation and to engage in learning those groups which are currently under-represented (the kind of groups to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred); to challenge discrimination and stereotyping; and to monitor and evaluate performance and disseminate examples of good practice.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that an equal opportunities strategy cannot be confined to issues of gender, race and disability. However, the Government's approach to equality in legislation, as set out in the Statement made in November by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, recognised that extending legal provisions beyond the current areas of race, sex and disability raises a number of questions which need further thought and research. To give one example, while the LSC will certainly be addressing the needs of older learners, it is a clear provision in the Bill that priority must be given to 16 to 19 year-old learners. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we need to think through these issues and, in the light of the assurances about what we expect the LSC to do in practice, will not press his amendments.
	I turn to Amendment No. 66. Once again I recognise the concern of the noble Lord that the duties should apply to local LSCs as much as to the national LSC. I share the view that local councils should be right at the forefront in ensuring that we make a real difference in removing barriers to disadvantaged groups. As I mentioned earlier, the LSC will benchmark the performance of the local councils.
	However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the result that both the noble Lord and I want to achieve. Local councils are part of the single unitary body which is the LSC. When the local councils perform functions delegated by the national council, they will be subject to the same duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. The LSC prospectus makes clear that action plans will be required at local as well as national level. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will not feel the need to press the amendment.
	As regards Amendment No. 7, I repeat that appointments will be carried out in accordance with the guidance of the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. What is significant in appointments to the council is a person's ability to do the job and do it well over the period of appointment. We shall strive to achieve a balanced council and one which reflects the diversity of the population, which is, I recognise, the purpose behind the amendment. However, I do not accept that that objective will be further supported by setting it in this legislation.
	We have set out unequivocally in the LSC prospectus that we shall expect local and national councils to include people who understand the needs of those who face discrimination, to challenge such discrimination, and to promote equality of opportunity. We are also taking active steps to encourage applications from traditionally under-represented groups, such as ethnic minorities, and are working with the CRE on that. The amendment we are introducing to place duties on the LSC in respect of equal opportunities reinforces our commitment to making progress in these areas on the face of the Bill.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for raising the issue of equality of opportunity in relation to inspection. I have no difficulty with the principle that inspection should encompass judgments on equal opportunities. As regards, for example, inspecting provision for students with disabilities, I would expect inspectors to form and report a view about whether equality of opportunity was being taken account of properly.
	Furthermore, I have no doubt that the adult learning inspectorate, and indeed Ofsted, will evaluate the extent to which equal opportunities are promoted. This is territory which I think the common inspection framework should address. I would expect that in making their judgments, inspectors will consider, for example, whether the provider promotes access for disabled students; whether there are up-to-date equal opportunity and disability policies; whether selection procedures for students guarantee equality of opportunity; and whether there is proper regard for protection against discrimination and harassment, and so forth. All those judgments should be part and parcel of any inspection. In those respects I think that the noble Lord and I are in full agreement.
	But I believe that the best place for setting out those issues is not on the face of the Bill but in the common inspection framework. That will encompass many other highly desirable features of a good and comprehensive approach to inspection such as, for example, effective leadership and management or the standards of internal quality assurance and the guidance and support for learners. Once again, however, I repeat that I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, even if I take a different view about how best to give them expression.
	The government amendments are a mark of our firm commitment to equal opportunities and our desire that the LSC and the Welsh council place the principles at the forefront of their work. I understand the reasoning behind the further additions and amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I am sympathetic to the objectives. However, as I made clear in my opening remarks, I do not believe they are necessary to achieve the action we all want to undertake. I hope that the House will accept the amendments standing in my name and that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that the admirable principles of equal opportunities of a general nature and the comprehensive approach which she enunciated of challenging discrimination and stereotyping wherever it is found are weakened by Amendment No. 55 which refers specifically to three particular groups which will be protected by this legislation? When a particular group is mentioned in legislation, the rights of and opportunities for all the other groups who may fall into the general class are immediately weakened. I believe it is wrong to do that in connection with only three groups of disadvantaged people.

Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe it is right to state categorically that we should not be discriminating against girls or women, ethnic minorities, disabled people or young people with a learning disability. It is perfectly appropriate to specify that because these groups have suffered from discrimination in many different areas of public life. It is right that we should make clear that we expect the LSC to work hard to ensure that that does not happen.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I would like the Minister--

Lord Bach: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to give way for a moment. I am sorry to interrupt but we are on Report. Of course, the noble Baroness is entitled to ask questions to elucidate something the Minister said in her reply, but she cannot make a speech.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, the question I wish to ask the Minister is whether, under the category of people with learning difficulties, she would include those who have emotional and behavioural difficulties and who, in the light of their past careers, might find it very difficult to be taken seriously by the council. If such people are included, then I shall be very happy to have them mentioned in a category in her amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that they are included.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I begin with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I understand very well the point that he makes. My understanding is that this clause is about discrimination and not about teaching as such. I do not want to be drawn into a debate as to whether it is possible or desirable to teach non-religion. My understanding is that that would cover those who did not profess to have a religion, although if the wording needs to be tightened I would not be worried about that. It is the principle that I am trying to convey. I believe that on this issue the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I are at one.
	I have no doubt also that the Minister and I are at one over what we want to achieve. I hope that I made that clear, but perhaps I may do so again. I welcome the Minister's two amendments although my feeling is that they do not go far enough. I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who described herself as a wimp. I would not have been so rude in that regard, but she expressed exactly my concern that we are specifying three important areas of discrimination and in doing so drawing attention to European Union definitions that are not mentioned. By referring to three we are drawing attention to the fact that we are not referring to another three.
	In reply the Minister made reference to what is a new body, the importance of establishing it as such, and being at the cutting edge. Not so long ago I spent many happy hours here setting up another new body, the Greater London Authority. We eventually included a provision in what is now an Act, specifically giving the new authority a duty in all these areas of discrimination. To have done that for one new body and now quite deliberately leaving it out for another is a form of discrimination itself. It is a mistake.
	I do not doubt the Minister's belief that the matter is covered in the prospectus and that there will be a strong duty on the national council. One could argue there is no need to make any reference in the Bill. But we are, and we have welcomed it. I feel quite strongly that if we are to make a reference, it should be a comprehensive one--not a partial reference, as it is now. It is almost a retrograde step which I very much regret.
	Similarly, we are not imposing any duty on the local councils because they will be benchmarked by the national council which will require them to deliver and so forth. That argument could be used for not having the government amendments as regards the national council. If it is a priority for the local councils, as the Minister and I believe, then that too should be on the face of the Bill, not least because its omission, having put the onus on the national council, in a sense has a reverse effect.
	In many ways the proviso is possibly more important on a local council at local level where in some cases it is business dominated and the matter is not necessarily at the top of the agenda. I have some regret about not pressing the amendment. I hope that the Minister will think further. I welcome the step that has been taken today, but I urge the Government to turn it into a bigger stride and to give a more wholehearted and all-embracing commitment to equality of opportunity before the Bill is finally enacted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 [Learning and Skills Council for England]:
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 56, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, invited me to bring back these three amendments because I confused appointing staff with appointing the chief executive. I agreed; hence Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
	Paragraph 5(1) of the schedule states,
	"The Council may appoint such employees as it thinks fit".
	Sub-paragraph (2) continues,
	"A person is to be appointed as an employee of the Council on such terms (including terms as to remuneration and allowances) as the Council may determine".
	Then, incongruously and for no good reason, sub-paragraph (3) states:
	"A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
	I simply ask the question: why? It seems to me that if the council is prestigious, carefully chosen and appointed, with a good chairman and chief executive, why cannot it be left to have control over the quality of staff, especially if it is free to appoint and to determine the terms and conditions?
	My second amendment gives me the opportunity to ask for some explanation of what I refer to as legalese gobbledegook. Paragraph 8(6) states:
	"The Secretary of State may remove a disability under this paragraph subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate".
	Sub-paragraph (7) states:
	"The power of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (6) includes power to remove (either indefinitely or for any period) a disability which would otherwise attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or described by the Secretary of State".
	That would win no prizes in a plain English competition. I wish to know what the wording means. Indeed, I should have included sub-paragraph (8) because that goes on to say:
	"Nothing in this paragraph precludes any member from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or in voting on, any question whether an application should be made to the Secretary of State for the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (6)",
	which is about removing a disability. It would be helpful to know what a "disability" is and what the three extracts I have quoted mean.
	My third amendment I admitted to when speaking to these amendments before they were withdrawn at the previous stage of the Bill. I refer to the battle that I lost in the back room and in this Chamber when dealing with a previous Bill. When a body is set up and the Government argue strongly that it is not a top-down arrangement and not everything is emanating from the Secretary of State, why is it that the Secretary of State has an absolute right to attend the meetings?
	It seems to me that once the council is set up, as has happened when similar bodies have been established in the past, it should, if it wishes, have representatives of the Secretary of State or the holder of that office present at council meetings. But it should be at the discretion of the council. If we are to dispel any fears that the Bill is a top-down, influential arrangement, then it should be the council which invites the Secretary of State or his or her representatives to attend meetings. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. We agreed that we should return to these issues today on Report. Paragraph 5(2) of the schedule, as the noble Baroness says, provides that the terms and conditions (including pay) on which the council employs staff are for the council itself to determine but the Secretary of State must approve the council's determination. As the noble Baroness stated in clear terms, her Amendment No. 9 removes this provision.
	The LSC will be a large, non-departmental public body within the public sector employing significant numbers of staff. It is a standard provision for such NDPBs that the Secretary of State should be able to approve their proposed terms and conditions to ensure that public sector employment policies are observed. By way of example, perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to Schedule 1 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, both of which are fairly recent examples under successive governments of how this problem has been approached. We do not believe that we should take a different attitude in this Bill.
	Amendment No. 10 refers to the part of Schedule 1 which deals with members' interests. Under this provision, a member of the national LSC cannot take part in discussions or decisions of the national council where that member has disclosed an interest in the outcome. The noble Baroness asked what the word "disability" means in that context. It really means disclosing an interest.
	The intention of sub-paragraphs (6) to (8) is to allow the Secretary of State to remove that bar where appropriate. If the amendment were passed, it would no longer be possible for the Secretary of State to intervene. It is of course right that LSC members with an interest should disclose that interest when such matters are discussed and should normally be barred from taking part in relevant deliberations and decisions in which they have an interest. We believe that an unqualified application of these provisions could lead to perverse consequences. I shall give one hypothetical example. If a principal of a further education college who was on the national council was unable to take part in general debates on priorities for resource allocation because the outcome would inevitably have some impact on his or her college, we do not think it would be in the public interest for that principal necessarily not to take part in the discussions on that broad topic. We believe that there should be a provision for the Secretary of State to lift such a bar on an individual member when he judges that it is sensible. This is standard provision in legislation which establishes NDPBs. I refer to Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that it is right that this power should be with the Secretary of State rather than the council in order to ensure that such decisions are made in a detached and considered way.
	The noble Baroness's third amendment would remove the entitlement of the Secretary of State to have a representative present at any meeting of the council and take part in any deliberations at these meetings. It would make the representative's attendance subject to the approval of the council.
	The noble Baroness mentioned that she had lost a battle on this matter in the recent past. Perhaps I may say in passing that I do not suppose that she lost many battles of this type when she was in government. However, we cannot agree with her on this occasion. No doubt, that skirmish was lost because it was then, and still is, common practice for the sponsoring department to send a representative to meetings of its sponsored non-departmental public body. The provision within paragraph 9(1) of the schedule--which bars the Secretary of State's representative from taking part in the decisions of the council at these meetings, which is again a standard bar--is an important restriction.
	However, I say to the noble Baroness that we believe it right that the representative should be there to inform and observe. I repeat what has been often said: the LSC will be responsible for spending a huge amount of public money--£6 billion. It will be important that the relationship between the council, the department and the Secretary of State is a close one. We believe that an arrangement whereby the Secretary of State's observer attends meetings but does not take part in decisions strikes about the right balance.
	I hope I have explained to some extent the thinking behind the way in which the Bill appears, and that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has responded to these amendments. However, I simply do not accept the explanation. I believe that the law is the law. The ways in which the council will have to behave towards its staff are already set out in endless statutes. Therefore, the idea that it could do something quite outside the law seems to me to be extraordinary. It has to live within budgets. It already has a direction. It comes from the Secretary of State to the council. The idea that there should be a determination under this paragraph for each member of staff does seem to me to be excessive. It is also excessive intrusion in the day-to-day work of the council, which will be employing people and managing employees all the time.
	I accept the Minister's explanation in respect of disability, but it is such a pity that we cannot use the opportunity to engage in plain English. It seems to me that the noble Lord's explanation was that a disability could be explained by removing a bar to speaking and/or voting on an issue. I think that is what it actually meant--that it is possible for the Secretary of State to lift that bar and, as set out in paragraph 8, nothing would preclude a member from then taking part and voting on an issue where that has happened.
	The Minister's response to my Amendment No. 11 only serves to feed our concerns about the incredible influence that the Department for Education and Employment, and the Secretary of State personally, will have on the way in which the council works. I know from experience that there will be an almost permanent presence on these councils, reforming, informing and observing. "Informing" and "observing" were the two words used by the noble Lord. I believe that, once set up with a proper remit, and with all the other statutes that come into play in terms of how they behave, they should be left to get on with it. However, those people, not just inside this Chamber but outside as well, who are very concerned about the superstructure of bureaucracy headed by the Department for Education and Employment will not be helped by the Government's defence of this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 57, line 5, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 115.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 1, line 21, after first ("education") insert ("and training").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 12 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, 21, 26 to 29, and 31 to 34. The net effect of all these amendments is to eliminate the need for separate subsections in Clauses 2 and 3 referring separately on each occasion to "education" and "training". I spoke to a similar set of amendments in Committee when I stressed the need to get away from the binary divide that separates education from training and to take a more holistic view of the two. We were much encouraged on that occasion by what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, had to say in response. He said:
	"We recognise and accept that our present arrangements for post-16 education and training are too fragmented and incoherent ... Members of the Committee quite rightly make the point ... that the proposed new arrangements should not simply perpetuate the artificial distinctions and separate systems of the past".--[Official Report, 8/2/2000; col. 566.]
	The noble Lord went on to say that he appreciated that from the way education and training are separated in the two clauses we might get the impression that things were not going to change, but he nevertheless assured us that that would not be the case.
	I return to this issue because it is unsatisfactory that the Bill makes so clear a distinction between education and training when this is not the intention. If the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide a coherent framework for post-16 education and training, providing a seamless service across the whole spectrum of needs and not pigeon-holing them into convenient categorisations that have plagued and divided the service for far too long, it is not only logical, but also important that this distinction is eradicated from the face of the Bill.
	As it stands, the wording of the Bill perpetuates precisely what the Minister stated the Government wanted to avoid. Our amendments are not far reaching; indeed, I would go as far as saying that they are largely cosmetic or drafting amendments; but their significance goes well beyond their appearance. Combining education and training, as suggested, on the face of the Bill would indicate that the Government intend to live up to their declared aspirations.
	For too long we have had this divide in Britain between the academic and the vocational; between the high status education and the low status training. It has led to an undervaluation of the practical and has plagued our approach towards the applied sciences and engineering. It means that we have never really offered a proper career structure for vocational training. We have never, like the Germans, trained people to be a Meister with all the status and symbolism that that implies.
	This Bill makes a real attempt to break with the past and to forge a new integrated and coherent approach--and yet here, on the very first page, in the second and third clauses of the Bill, it reverts to the old style of address. We urge the Minister to have the courage of his convictions and to make sure that the Bill's wording reflects the Government's aspirations on these issues. I beg to move.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I do not want to bring too much ideology into this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness. However, we quote Germany so easily. What is conveniently forgotten is that in Germany there are separate channels for vocational and academic education, which has been the nature of the success of German education--and the French, the Dutch and the Austrian. I have said this in this House often before: altering words on a Bill will not alter the fundamental structural problem of English education; that is, that the only way we felt we could make vocational training acceptable was to make it parasitic on academic. It has failed; it will fail; and the Germans have it right. I am glad the noble Baroness said that, but she is not prepared to go the whole mile.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, on the skilful way in which these comprehensive amendments to Clauses 2 and 3 have been drafted. She will forgive me saying that practice is clearly making perfect.
	We fully accept the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness in relation to the fragmentation of present arrangements for post-16 education and training, and agree that the LSC must view them, to use her expression, in a "holistic" and balanced way. The new arrangements must not simply perpetuate the artificial distinction and separate systems of the past. Her concern that the form in which the duties of the council are expressed may imply a continuation of such divisions is also appreciated. There is nothing between us on the policy; rather on the way in which it is expressed.
	The noble Baroness made it clear that she would like to see on the face of the Bill an explicit reference in the duties of the LSC to those aspects of education and training which are concerned with broadening the mind, which Amendment No. 29 addresses. Again, I do not believe that there is anything between us on the policy here, and I share her aspirations. But we believe that this amendment too is unnecessary.
	Post-16 education in this Bill encompasses secondary education for persons over the age of 16 and further education. Both secondary and further education are defined in Section 2 of the Education Act 1996. In particular, as has already been mentioned when we previously considered this amendment in Committee, the amendment is unnecessary because the exact words the noble Baroness seeks to apply to the meaning of "education" in this Bill already appear on the statute book in Section 2 of that Act.
	I am sorry that this is a rather legalistic response, but the point being made by the noble Baroness essentially involves the legal phrasing of the Bill. In those circumstances, I hope that she will understand that a response which cites legal definitions is appropriate in the circumstances.
	In Committee and today the noble Baroness accepted that the Government's intentions are good, but was concerned that a future government may seek to interpret the law differently. I must point out that the meaning of the law does not change at elections. We inherited the previous government's arrangements for post-16 education and found them lacking; but we were bound to work within that framework until we brought forward the present Bill which we consider to be a much better and more coherent approach to post-16 education and training. We are satisfied that the Bill as drafted does not imply the possibility of differential and fragmented approaches to education and training. The LSC's duties must be viewed as a whole. It does not have the discretion to choose to implement some bits and ignore other parts. None of the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 is an optional extra.
	I repeat the assurance already given that the provisions as currently drafted do not imply any such division in the first place. Each phrase carries equal weight in its current form. No fragmentation of approach is implied or required by the way the words are organised on the page. As drafted, the existing provisions achieve what we all want to see, and therefore the proposed amendments are unnecessary. I hope that with those assurances (perhaps repeated more times than they should have been), the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his congratulations on my drafting skills. He is right that practice helps and I am learning by doing on these occasions.
	Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the Government do not see fit to accept my amendments. I am glad that they accept them in spirit; but we knew that from the words spoken in Committee. The Minister is right that we on these Benches welcome the integrated coherent purpose of the reforms incorporated in the Bill. However, I cannot see why, if that is the intention, it cannot be expressed on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 1, line 23, at end insert ("or of persons who are above the compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25 and who did not acquire a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attained the age of 16").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 13 is coupled with Amendment No. 14, which will be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
	In col. 572 of Hansard on 8th February the Minister said that,
	"to single out the needs of one group of adults and to give them priority over all adults would be wrong, although of course I [the Minister] have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendments".
	I understand what the Minister was saying. But we are talking about those young people who, for one reason or another--perhaps there has been a mismatch between an individual and school teachers; perhaps there has been a high degree of truancy; or perhaps for more acceptable reasons, such as where a young person has had long periods of illness or because of a learning difficulty--have not been capable of attaining up to a level 2 qualification by the age of 19.
	On a number of occasions we have discussed the cut-off point of 19. Up to that age, the provision has to be a proper provision made by the council and the local councils, but beyond that age it becomes discretionary and hidebound by resources. If there is to be any priority at all for young people--I include 19 to 25-year olds as "young people"--and if "inclusivity" is to mean anything (I gave some examples of the kind of people I am talking about), there ought to be some flexibility to continue the focus and emphasis on raising skill levels for that young cohort. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 14 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. Our reasons for tabling the amendment are similar to those cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she moved her Amendment No. 13. We are conscious of many young people aged over 19 who, for one reason or another, have failed to make the best use of the education system before that age and whose needs justify an entitlement to "proper" facilities after that age.
	In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, refers to those who have not acquired a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attain the age of 16. We on these Benches live in hope that the Government will implement the recommendations of the Kennedy report and those made in the third report of the National Skills Task Force. That report suggested that there should be an entitlement to education and training up to level 3 rather than level 2, which is currently enjoyed by those under the age of 19, and that this entitlement should be extended up to the age of 25.
	When we debated this issue in Committee, the Minister made it clear that, for the present, priority lay with making good the entitlement for the 16 to 19 year-old cohort, in particular taking steps to bring back into the fold those who had dropped out of education and were neither employed nor currently receiving either education or training. We agree with this priority, but we are also of the opinion that many of these--and indeed others in the 16 to 19 year-old cohort--do not know what they want to do with their lives and resist the idea of education or training, only to regret those decisions when they are a little older. By then they may have had to face the responsibilities of parenthood and homemaking. It is vital that provision should be made for those late returners. They should be offered the opportunity to equip themselves with recognised skills and qualifications.
	Amendment No. 14 has been drafted flexibly so as to offer two advantages. First, immediately, it allows for discretion so that in deserving cases the Secretary of State can extend the entitlement to those aged over 19. Secondly, later, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels perhaps a little more generous than he does at the moment, it would allow that entitlement to be extended to those up to the age of 25.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, it is very important to include a measure of flexibility in this area. The age of 19 is often quite a turning point for people with severe learning difficulties and sometimes it is inappropriate to cut off their educational opportunities at that age. For myself, I would not want to tie such extra provision for education to further qualifications because for people with severe learning difficulties education is good in itself, even if it does not lead to further qualifications. For that reason, I strongly support Amendment No. 14, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, these amendments would extend to other age groups the entitlement to education and training that Clause 2 provides for young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has previously made what I genuinely think is a very good point about the needs of people who may have missed out in their school years and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reinforced that point. I do not think that there is much between us here in what we want for such people and I share the concerns of both noble Baronesses.
	In discharging its duties for the older age group, the LSC must--I repeat the word "must"--ensure that the education and training provided for them is suitable to their requirements. The flexibility to do that is already in place. The requirements of a person with low levels of previous achievement will, of course, be very different from the requirements of those who are already well qualified. It is precisely with that in mind that the consultation we are conducting at the moment on future funding arrangements suggests moving beyond current systems. These might be broadly characterised as dividing payments for provision into entry, retention and achievement. We have suggested building in a fourth element, payment for disadvantage. This would not be restricted to a particular age group, unlike the effect of either of these amendments. Indeed, I do not believe that it should be. There are people over the age of 25 who also need help in coming back into either full-time or part-time education.
	However, I repeat a key point from our previous debate on this issue: to single out the needs of one specified group of adults and to give them priority over other adults in this way would be wrong. I believe that it would constrain the LSC and reduce the element of flexibility for which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has asked. It would restrict the council's ability to make judgments about what may be the equally and possibly more pressing needs of some other adults.
	I am also bound to point out again that some adults with special needs or disabilities could actually be disadvantaged by Amendment No. 13. Let us take the example of a disabled adult of any age who has attained a level 2 qualification. The effect of the amendment would mean that that person would be cut out. The LSC would be required to give greater priority to a person aged under 25 without a disability who had not achieved a level 2 qualification. I am not sure that that is what we want to achieve. I believe that this indicates some of the difficult decisions that will need to be taken. Placing such requirements on the LSC may have some consequences that none of us intended.
	Although Amendment No. 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, takes a slightly different approach to Amendment No. 13, it would also have the effect of giving priority to one group of adults over another on the basis of age rather than their actual requirements. I believe that what we need here is a less restrictive approach which would allow the LSC to exercise its judgment and its discretion about the allocation of resources--

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I should point out to the Minister that the amendment as drafted does not give priority to any particular group of adults. It has been deliberately left open to be determined by the Secretary of State.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that Amendment No. 14 has built into it a determination by the Secretary of State. However, I should like to return to the point that placing requirements on the LSC would be an unfortunate move. I believe that we need a rather less restrictive approach which would allow it to exercise its own judgment and discretion. I hope that, in view of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before I decide what to do with Amendment No. 13, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to answer one question. The amendment that follows these amendments--Amendment No. 15--goes some way to answering the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. If my amendment were to be accepted, the noble Baroness spoke of a person aged between 19 and 25 without a learning disability then taking precedence over someone with a disability aged over 25. Amendment No. 15 narrows the group of people for whom proper provision should be made, as opposed to reasonable provision. Can the noble Baroness give the House an indication of whether she will be able to accept that amendment? Logic would say that Amendment No. 15 should be more acceptable than my amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps it would be easier to wait until we reach the next group of amendments. However, although I am sympathetic to what is being proposed in Amendment No. 15, I am afraid that I am going to have to resist it for reasons that I shall give in due course.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for being so straightforward in her answer to my question. In her opening remarks in response to Amendment No. 13, the noble Baroness said--I made a note of her words--that the LSC "must" provide education and training to meet the requirements of those who have not achieved level 2.
	However, that is not what it says in the Bill. Clause 2(1) states that,
	"The Council must secure the provision of proper facilities",
	and goes on to refer to young people up to the age of 19. But there is a very different emphasis in Clause 3. Subsection (1) states that the council must provide "reasonable facilities" and subsection (2) says:
	"Facilities are reasonable if (taking account of the Council's resources) ... the Council can reasonably be expected to secure their provision".
	So there is already a very serious constraint on who will receive "proper facilities" and who will receive "reasonable facilities" in the opinion of the council. There is a wholly legal defence for the council to say, "We simply can't afford it". It is just a matter of trying to find a way to put some focus on those young people, with or without learning disabilities, who, for one reason or another, have not achieved level 2 qualifications.
	There are many people who must be considered personally culpable for not achieving--for example, not working hard enough, not attending well and truanting from school--and there is perhaps less sympathy for them. But even now the Government still say that we cannot as a society stand back and let those people become problematic and, of course, more costly to the community. However, there is another group of people involved. I have in mind those who, for many reasons well beyond their control, have not achieved level 2 qualifications. I have already mentioned long periods of illness, dislocation because of moving from one part of the country to another and even moving from one country to another. There are also those people described in Amendment No. 15, which refers to those with genuine disabilities.
	It seems to me that the Government should find a way to give some flexibility to enable proper provision to be extended to a group of people who will be determined by a form of words on the face of the Bill, or, using the words of the noble Baroness, determined by the Secretary of State. In light of the fact that the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment or Amendment No. 15, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 128.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 1, line 23, at end insert--
	("( ) education (other than higher education) suitable for the requirements of persons with learning difficulties or disabilities (or both) who are above compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25 and whose progress in education has been delayed by their learning difficulty or disability (or both),").

Lord Rix: My Lords, I asked for my Amendments Nos. 15 and 93 to be separated from Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, as mine deal specifically with people with learning difficulties or learning disabilities, and the latter comprise a group in which I have a particular interest. I am saddened to hear in advance that the Minister will resist Amendment No. 15, even though I have not yet voiced my arguments.
	Your Lordships may recall that I moved an amendment in Committee which was not dissimilar to Amendments Nos. 15 and 93 before the House this afternoon. My earlier amendment sought to extend fundamental learning opportunities up to the age of 25 for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. During the course of that debate the Minister was kind enough to commit to remedying a disparity in which students with learning difficulties and disabilities have to be turned down by mainstream providers in order to be deemed eligible for specialist provision. For this I, and I am sure other noble Lords, are most grateful. Important though this is, my amendment also sought to address another substantive issue, one on which I would welcome the Minister's specific attention, although to a certain extent I already have advance notification of that.
	The amendments before the House this afternoon seek to make provision in the Bill for an entitlement to access further education provision for a narrow group of young people who are currently at risk of exclusion. The group of concern are young people whose early education has been inhibited or delayed as a direct result of their learning difficulty or their learning disability, with the consequence that they may not reach further education until shortly after the age of 19, but would expect to move on before the age of 25. My amendment endeavours to capture only those students whose progress has been inhibited as a direct result of their learning difficulty or disability. I am therefore confident that it will not have the effect of opening the floodgates in terms of demand.
	I believe that the proposed amendments, supported by appropriate guidance, confirm the principle of entitlement for students with learning difficulties or disabilities up to the age of 25, while providing a mechanism for limiting the numbers to whom the entitlement would apply.
	The Minister kindly wrote to me this morning. I am aware that she is giving this matter serious consideration in spite of her earlier statement about resisting the amendment. I look forward to hearing her response from the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Those of us who are involved in one way or another with the provision of education for young people from the ages of 16 to 19 who have learning difficulties or disabilities--I think that your Lordships will be aware that I am the president of a charity which maintains a successful college for blind and visually impaired students--will know that students of this age group who have learning difficulties or disabilities travel at their own speed. By the age of 19 some will have acquired skills, or even possibly the level of certificated attainment; others will not, not through any fault of not trying but as a result of their learning difficulties. Yet the axe falls at 19 and they have to go. They may not even be able to acquire a job at that stage. I do not believe that that axe should fall.
	I emphasise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made; namely, that we are not talking about masses and masses of people. This is not a matter over which the Treasury need have nightmares. We are talking about a relatively small number of people who are, nevertheless, important as individuals. They should not be thrust out of colleges and told that it has all come to an end. I believe that the Government should move on this issue. I have had sight of a letter which the noble Baroness has sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Clearly the Government are moving in this area. We shall obviously ask for a little more, but, first, I should thank the Minister for what she has done. When you ask for more, you should begin by giving thanks for what you have already received. That is an error that Oliver Twist made; not that the overseer of the Poor House would have changed his attitude in that particular case. I thank the Minister as she has made significant improvements in recognition of the problems that disabled students face, particularly as regards amendments to Clause 113.
	I suspect that the noble Baroness will suggest in her letter of reply--I hope that she does not mind my saying so--that one way forward would be to make an assessment of the 19 to 25 year-old students I am discussing. That is certainly a step forward, but only a modest one. An assessment does not constitute an entitlement. It is halfway there. We wish to push for something more than a halfway measure.
	As regards any amendments which the noble Baroness introduces at Third Reading, will she bear in mind some specific points? First, the measure should apply to all students from the ages of 19 to 25, and not to those who may just have been assessed in their final year under Clause 113 at 16. Secondly, I hope that she will make the process simple. The parents of many 19 year-old students find that they are embroiled in an enormous administrative nightmare in discussions with the FEFC to continue their children's education and training beyond the age of 19. It should be a simple and straightforward process.
	Thirdly, I echo the point made by the noble Baroness on the Cross Benches on the previous amendment when she said that the provision should not be related to a student's attainment. The very fact that from the ages of 19 to 25 someone who has learning difficulties and disabilities is going through the process of education is in itself an enrichment process which should be continued until the age of 25. To give a little more teeth to the measure, apart from just making an assessment for 19 to 25 year-olds, I hope that there will be a requirement for LEAs to take that assessment into account. That takes the measure a little further. Without that requirement, the assessment will remain on the record book. Some LEAs will respond to such an assessment; others will not.
	I support these amendments. I am sure that there will be progress, but we should like to go a little further than the Government have in mind at the moment.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendments. This is a rather odd debate. We have a rough idea of the Minister's attitude towards the amendment and an idea of what will be her argument. Nevertheless, we should try to remind the Minister why we propose the amendment.
	The amendment concerns young people who have not achieved their potential. It seeks to push the arbitrary barrier further back in order to give them another bite at the cherry. If those in a particular group of people have not attained a certain level of education through no fault of their own, surely extra opportunities should be extended for that group. If we take into account certain other groups, those with what are commonly called "hidden" disabilities--I know most about dyslexia, but one could bring in milder forms of autism--which are not diagnosed early enough, suddenly we are faced with a group of people who have not had a realistic chance of a first bite at the cherry. If we want to help them, we have to extend their opportunities.
	I know that discretionary awards are allowed, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, virtually everyone involved in any charity dealing with education or any other kind of care, spends a vast amount of time advising parents or carers how to get through the bureaucratic system. If what the amendment seeks to achieve is contained in the Bill, such people will not waste anywhere near that amount of time. It also means that people with learning disabilities may not spend quite as many years up to the age of 25 in further education because they will have less trouble getting into it in the first place.
	The amendment addresses real concerns about such people. It will enable them to get on with their lives as opposed to spending years chasing around trying to bully officials and crying on the doorsteps of local politicians in order to obtain something which should be theirs by right.

Baroness David: My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment. The case has been ably put by those who have already spoken. I support the amendment. It would not be fair if these young people were left out. They would risk exclusion altogether. It is a terribly important amendment. The number of people affected is not very vast.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support the amendment. It has been made even more necessary as a result of information which has reached me since we last debated the Bill in Committee. I should again declare my interest as the father of a 19 year-old Down's syndrome daughter whose future education her mother and I are now in the throes of trying to clarify after she leaves her present school in July.
	As this is Report stage, I should perhaps save the detail of what I have to say for the further Bill that the Minister has said the Government are to introduce later in this Session. Nevertheless, two areas are sufficiently worrying to put before your Lordships now in support of the amendment.
	First, there appears to be a growing habit among some local education authorities to cut off funding for students as soon as they reach their 19th birthday. My noble friend Lord Baker referred to this. If someone turns 19 in the last year, or even the last term, of a three-year course, funding may stop. This is obviously very disturbing for the student who cannot complete the course or take part in the special events which may take place at the end of it. It seems that such LEAs consider that their responsibility ends abruptly when a student reaches 19 and that they do not have any duty towards continuity. That must be fairly clear discrimination against students with mental handicaps or learning disabilities. I cannot believe that it would happen to ordinary students who are funded for a particular course regardless of when their birthdays fall. This practice must also waste resources because much of the good achieved by the course is wasted if the student cannot complete it.
	I do not know yet how widespread is the practice. Apparently it has become more so in the past three years. I can reveal, however, that this problem hit three students when they were leaving my daughter's school. One has had to go onto a social services placement which does not have any educational component at all; another will turn 19 next January and the LEA will commit funding only until then. It is not a convenient month in the educational calendar in which to be cut loose.
	The FEFC is not blameless either. The parents of a student in the year ahead of my daughter did not learn that the FEFC had granted funding for the requisite special residential school until last September when the course had already started in August. Apart from anything else, this must be traumatic for such a student. I am quite sure that the parents would have been trying to obtain FEFC approval for at least a year before that. Very late on in the negotiations, the FEFC required the student to look at two unsuitable local colleges, which must also have been very upsetting. These are clear examples of the post-19 gap or trap, to which I referred in Committee, into which fall so many of our young people with mental handicaps.
	Together with other noble Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the Government's intentions. If the Government could accept the amendment, that would go a long way towards meeting some of the problems I have outlined because the LSC would have a clear responsibility for solving them. Without it, I fear the muddle may continue. I support the amendment.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I wish to add my name to the long list of supporters of the amendment. The Government have made huge improvements in the Bill. As we have seen, the duties amendment has gone way beyond what we asked for. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, it would seem from the Minister's letter to my noble friend Lord Rix that the Government are moving a little. However, we are rather sticking on the issue and not getting beyond a certain point. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, if a disabled learner does not complete his or her education, it is wasted. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, in the case of some people the problems have only just been discovered at this stage. They are not even beginning to get to grips with their education. This is a very important issue.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise for two reasons, one of which is to apologise to the noble Baroness because I am responsible for the fact that we elicited from her what her reaction would be to the amendment. That was unfortunate, but I wanted to know for good reason. I believed it important that we have some flexibility between the ages of 19 and 25. The interesting amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also sought to introduce flexibility.
	People with such disabilities must be at the top of the list of the category of those who require proper provision rather than a provision dependent upon the resources and/or the priorities of the day of the provider. I believe that the Government's fears are unjustified. We are talking about the kind of people who, through no fault of their own, do not acquire level 2 or continue to have learning difficulties to the extent that they need proper provision. They should not be subject to the priorities of the day or the vagaries of budgeting. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, sufficiently defines a group of people whom the Government could take on board. I should like the provision to be wider. There are still people who do not have learning difficulties but who are sufficiently disadvantaged to require proper provision which is not dependent on the vagaries of budgeting. I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
	I admit my culpability for eliciting from the Minister her reaction to this amendment. An extremely powerful case has been put for the amendment. In the light of that, even at this late stage, I hope that the noble Baroness will rethink her response to it.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we had a helpful debate in Committee about the ways in which the LSC and CETW will need to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties in exercising their duties. I made clear then why the Government could not support an amendment which sought to extend the scope of Clauses 2 and 31 of the Bill so that they covered all students with learning difficulties up to the age of 25. At the same time I emphasised that, in exercising their duties under Clauses 2 and 3 and Clauses 31 and 32, the councils would, by virtue of Clauses 13 and 41, have to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties and, in particular, to any report of an assessment conducted under Clause 113. I also referred to the councils' duties to take account of the abilities and aptitudes of different persons.
	Moreover, I should add that given that Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 were accepted earlier today, the LSC and the CETW will also have an additional duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons who are disabled and those who are not. I am grateful for the support for those amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others.
	In Committee, I made clear that the Government and the National Assembly intend to give guidance to the councils about the way in which they must exercise their duties under Clauses 3 and 32. It will address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others about the position of individual students who begin a course at a later age than some of their fellow students, or need longer to complete their course. I am extremely sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said in regard to young people who reach the age of 19 and are then not able to complete a course. That is clearly unacceptable and action must be taken to ensure that it does not happen.
	But the reservations that I expressed in Committee are similar to my concerns about Amendments Nos. 15 and 93. They are largely to do with difficulties of definition. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will understand why I felt able to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch--I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her apology--that I should have to resist the amendments before I had actually heard what the noble Lord had to say. There would be enormous difficulties in drawing a line in individual cases between people who could legitimately claim that their progress in education had been delayed by their learning difficulty and those who could not. The councils would be placed in an extremely invidious position by the lack of a clear distinction. The description in the amendment is simply too general.
	I have, none the less, been reflecting carefully on ways in which I might be able to meet the concerns that underlie the amendments while not accepting the amendments themselves. I am considering an alternative approach. In describing what I have in mind, I hope that I may be forgiven for looking forward from the beginning of the Bill almost to its end.
	At present, Clause 113 does two things. It requires the Secretary of State to arrange an assessment of the education and training needs, and the provision which is required to meet those needs, of school pupils with SEN statements who are in their last year of compulsory schooling and who intend to move into other forms of education and training. It also empowers him to do so in the cases of other students with learning difficulties who are under the age of 19. I shall want to make clear when we consider Amendment No. 148 tomorrow that this power is one which we intend to put to good effect. I am presently considering, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has anticipated, whether we should extend it so that the power under Clause 113(3) covers students with learning difficulties up to the age of 25, rather than 19 as now. In other words, we might bring this older age group within the scope of eligibility for an assessment.
	I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, have said. I shall want to look particularly at the point the noble Lord made about simplicity for parents and, perhaps more importantly, for students themselves--although I cannot guarantee that everything that noble Lords who have spoken in the debate would like will be incorporated into the government amendment.
	I hope that by that means we may be able to recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, emphasised in Committee, and again today; namely, that some pupils with learning difficulties might have a slower transition from school into further education or training; that some students take longer to complete further education or training courses; and that some people with learning difficulties return to learning after the age of 19, having left school earlier and stopped taking part in education.
	As is the case with younger people, the extent of the needs of this older age group will vary. However, I accept that some will have needs which would be identified in an assessment under the existing Clause 113 duty or power were they under the age of 19. I believe that there is a case for recognising that.
	As I have already said, the LSC and the CETW will have a specific duty to have regard to the needs of persons with assessments when exercising their duties to secure reasonable as well as proper facilities. In other words, where people aged between 19 and 25 were in possession of an assessment, the council would need to take that into account in allocating resources for post-19 education and training as a whole. That represents a clear and firm step towards meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other noble Lords.
	I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of noble Lords the principle of what I am currently considering. The Government will introduce an amendment at a later stage. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that what she has said is very helpful indeed. However, according to her final point, if a student aged between 19 and 25 receives an assessment--it is to be hoped on a simplified basis--the learning and skills council will then have to take that into account in the provision of resources. That is almost an entitlement. There is a wafer-thin decision between that and an entitlement. If in the future an entitlement is not given, what is likely to happen is that the parents of such a student, or the student himself or herself, will take the appropriate LEA or the learning and skills council to court and require that payment to be made. As the Minister is so close to saying "entitlement", at Third Reading she should be encouraged to make it an entitlement.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have not said that there will be an entitlement. We must be very careful about the language that we use here. Entitlements are normally universal for a particular group. What I have made clear is that some young people with learning difficulties would benefit from an assessment; but the reference is to "assessment" rather than "entitlement".

Lord Rix: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported these amendments. I should like to thank the Minister, not only for her help throughout the passage of the Bill but also for her letter, which I received just before lunchtime today, and for her response to the amendment.
	Obviously, I welcome any attempt to recognise the extra support that is needed for people with learning difficulties, and particularly for those with learning disabilities--known once upon a time, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would no doubt say, as those with a mental handicap, which places them in a slightly different category from any others.
	As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the Minister's proposal falls short of the magic word "entitlement". I am delighted that assessments can be made, but assessments can be left on shelves to moulder in the dust. The word "entitlement" would make a great deal of difference. I hope that in the weeks before Third Reading the Minister will reconsider her response in the letter and her response from the Dispatch Box to this amendment, and see whether the amendment that she is to bring forward at Third Reading can possibly include some semantics that embrace the word "entitlement".
	I am delighted that we have advanced so far in this debate and only hope that we can take that further step forward. Again, I offer my thanks to all noble Lords concerned with these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 2, line 6, after ("quantity") insert ("and quality").

Lord Tope: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 30 and 35. We return to the thorny issue of the intentional differences, as the Government told us last time, between Clauses 2 and 3 and the provision required for 16 to 19 year-olds and those over 19. We had a fairly full debate on this matter at Committee stage, and the Minister will be pleased to know that I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that I then made. He was careful to try to explain "proper", which I believe in the end he defined as "entitlement", and "reasonable", which he defined as "something slightly less". I believe that that was a slightly less than adequate definition of "reasonable". However, it was a matter which would not be determined by the needs of the learners but the resources which the LSC felt able to make available.
	I have already made clear that we do not regard those differences as acceptable. We understand that inevitably there must be a difference in the quantity of provision but certainly not in its quality. I recognise that every government has priorities. The Government have made it clear that their priority is 16 to 19 year-olds. Be that as it may, priorities change over time and it is not helpful to have them written into law. At present the Bill does not propose differing priorities within a single lifelong learning system but a two-tier system, with adult learners being relegated to a second division and receiving additional resources only after proper facilities for young people have been secured. That is not a statement of government priorities; it is to be in legislation for all time. That will be so until such time as there is a change in legislation, not a change in the Government's priorities. I do not believe that that is a helpful starting point to advance the interests of adult learners in the long term.
	The Minister was understandably concerned in Committee to try to provide correct definitions and did not explain as fully as I might have wished the Government's medium-term policies and aspirations for adult learning. I do not expect the Minister today to accept amendments which were so unacceptable to him in Committee. However, rather than spend time carefully defining "proper" and "reasonable" perhaps the noble Lord will explain the Government's priorities and medium-term aspirations for adult learning. It has been made clear to us that 16 to 19 year-olds will have priority. However, do the Government endorse the proposals in the Kennedy report or the more modest ones set out in the third Skills Task Force report as explicit policy goals? If we knew the answer to that it might go some small way to allay the concern that adult education is, by legislation, being relegated to the second division. In moving this amendment--more in hope than expectation--I trust that the Government will take the opportunity to allay some of the fears and express their aspirations for the medium and long-term future of adult education. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as I said previously at Committee stage--I was reminded of some of my comments and I now remind the noble Lord of others--the Government recognise that the country needs a substantial improvement in participation and achievement at every level of attainment. We expect the provision funded by the learning and skills council to build on the improvements now taking place in school quality and standards. The LSC will be required to give priority to the learning of 16 to 19 year-olds which will fulfil our commitment in the White Paper to give all 16 to 19 year-olds an entitlement to education and training, whether full-time or part-time. We expect the additional resources that we devote to post-16 learning to allow access to learning for all those who need it, whether adults or those in the 16 to 19 age group. We are making the biggest ever investment in further education: £3.9 billion in 2001-02 compared with £3.1 billion in 1998-99, which is an extra £800 million.
	In discharging its duties, the LSC must take into account the differing aptitudes and abilities of all the people for whom it has responsibility. The local LSCs will have discretion to secure the right balance and mix of post-19 provision in their areas. To single out the needs of one group of adults and give them priority over all adults would be wrong, although the Government have some sympathy with what lies behind Amendments Nos. 30 and 35. We believe that it would restrict the LSC's ability and discretion to make judgments about what may be the equally, and perhaps even more, pressing needs of other adults, including those with special needs or disabilities. The LSC must be able to exercise discretion.
	Although we judged it right to make a distinction between provision for the 16 to 19 age group and adults in much the same way as the previous government's legislation, it is certainly not the case that we regard learning for adults as unimportant. But we need to have some clear understanding of what constitutes "young people" for the purposes of this Bill and the work of the LSC as against adults. It is for the Government to give the lead on the policy, and we have done so. We have already announced an enormous increase in the resources available for adult learning in further education. I remind the noble Lord that in 1998-99 expenditure on adults in further education was £1.6 billion; in 2001-02 it will be £2 billion. That does not sound to me much like "relegation". That expenditure will enable the number of further education students to increase by 650,000 by the academic year 2000-01 compared with 1997-98. We need to go further. We expect to widen participation substantially, and the major part of that expansion will be for adults. I do not accept that we are in any way undervaluing the learning needs of adults.
	However, we must get things right for younger learners in the first place. The challenge at 16 to 19 cannot be underestimated. Most noble Lords will accept that what I am about to say is accurate. Undoubtedly, noble Lords will be aware of the findings of the report of the Social Exclusion Unit, Bridging the Gap, but I should like to highlight a few key findings. Regrettably, in the 16 to 19 age group we still have some of the lowest rates of participation in Europe. We have a sharper decline in participation from age 16 to age 18 than many countries in Europe. Young people who do not participate are at increased risk of being unemployed, becoming involved in drug abuse and having poor physical health. We are clear that the LSC's priority must be the 16 to 19 age group and nothing must detract from that. Let us get that right and then focus the increasing resources devoted to adults on enhancing and developing higher level skills, not in tackling the results of earlier failure. If we can get it right, obviously we shall save on later expenditure. We shall pick up the pieces from that failure and be able to invest more in developing adult skills.
	To extend the entitlement has substantial resource implications. Although it is attractive in many ways, that point must be taken into account. For young people alone, the council will be spending the best part of £4 billion on an age group that covers a two-year cohort. We have increased the resources for adults and will continue to do so. I hope noble Lords agree that that demonstrates the importance that we place on adult education. But with the best will in the world, no government--I venture to suggest not even a Liberal Democrat government--would put a commitment of this kind on the face of the Bill. It would be misleading and deceptive to make a provision that we could not deliver. Equally, it would have been misleading for us not to have made clear in the Bill our policy priorities. I hope that the noble Lord will understand why, as he suspected, I resist Amendments Nos. 30 and 35, and ask him to withdraw them.
	I have not spoken directly to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. The comments made with regard to Amendment No. 12 and grouped amendments are relevant. I do not wish to repeat myself. The basic point is that, as with the earlier group, the amendments are worthy but unnecessary. The Bill already achieves what the noble Lord would wish.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I am used to being told that my amendments are unnecessary. I suppose that it is a mark of progress that they are now worthy but unnecessary! I must take what small consolation I can from that.
	The Minister's reply was not entirely unexpected. I do not want to take issue with too much of what the noble Lord said. I did not entirely understand his reference to the different categories of adults; I do not think that my amendment refers to that. Nor do I want to use this opportunity to argue with him about figures. However, while he talks about the welcome increase in total expenditure on adult education, I think I am right in saying that because of increased access the unit expenditure per adult is decreasing rather than increasing. But we can argue these figures in another place at another time.
	Nor do I question the Government's honesty in setting out clearly their priority for 16 to 19 year-olds. They have been quite straightforward about that. There is a sense and logic to that. My concern is not that the Government are setting out their priorities. Of course, they must do so. It is that we are embodying those in legislation until such time as legislative opportunity arises to amend it. I have considerable doubts about that. It sends a message to adult learners and to the adult education world that they are in the second division. That is the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3. It is not simply a matter of the Government stating their priorities. They have ample means and opportunity to do so without enshrining them this boldly in legislation.
	However, I do not intend today to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert--
	("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, a number of Peers raised the importance of workforce development for the LSC and the role of national training organisations in the new arrangements. I wholeheartedly agreed that the need for an adaptable workforce which has the capacity and opportunity to learn new skills must influence the way in which the council exercises its main duties.
	In response to an amendment from my noble friend Lord Haskel I undertook to bring forward an amendment which would take account of the needs of different sectors of employment, recognising, of course, that national training organisations provide the leading expertise on sectoral issues.
	The Government have already made clear in the LSC prospectus how we expect the LSC and NTOs to work closely together. I would also expect NTOs to play the leading role in advising the LSC so that it can properly take account of sectoral interests as this amendment requires.
	The amendments also make the equivalent changes to the duties exercised by the CETW. I beg to move.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 22. I thank the Minister for incorporating the provision into the Bill. The national training organisations play an important role in training in different sectors of business and industry and the learning and skills councils will derive great benefit from working with them. It is important to remember that national training organisations deal with sectors of industry and business. The learning and skills councils deal with regions. It is important that they co-operate together. The amendment ensures that that will happen.
	I have a letter from Mr Garry Hawkes, CBE, chairman of the National Training Organisations National Council, expressing his satisfaction with the Bill and thanking the Minister for dealing with the issue. He assures the Government that the NTO will give every support possible to the learning and skills council.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as one who expressed concern in Committee about the failure of the Bill to take account of national training organisations, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in welcoming the amendment. I thank the Minister for listening to what we said. I am delighted to see that the provisions are incorporated not only in this part of the Bill but also later. I should like to record our pleasure.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. I hope that such a measure will lead eventually to students aged 16-plus who are considering entering a course of education being provided with information on the employability factor that it will add to their portfolio. As with some of the better FE colleges at present, they will know what jobs will welcome their qualifications and the employment records of students who have been through the course. That kind of quality "pull" is a great incentive to ensuring that the courses offered, in particular in FE, are those that industry wants. That information should be provided to a student who is being asked to commit two years to a specific course at an important stage of his or her life. If the Government are moving in that direction, I greatly welcome it.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Yes, employability is an important concept these days. We are concerned to provide more information to students at all levels about their likely employability as a result of a course they have undertaken.
	I express my thanks to all noble Lords who welcomed the amendment, which I commend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert--
	("( ) take account of the education and training required to prepare young persons of different abilities and aptitudes for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life outside the workplace;").

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in Committee I probed the Government's intentions about the kind of education and training that the learning and skills councils would offer. The Minister indicated that the education and training offered would not be limited to a vocational or work-oriented education and training. However, the noble Baroness did not accept that any positive definition of education and training should be on the face of the Bill.
	I have read carefully the Official Report and the prospectus for the learning and skills council published by the Government. I am now concerned more than ever that, whatever the Government intend, on the basis of what is stated in the Bill and the prospectus the reality will be that learning and skills councils will quickly become bodies devoted to preparing people for employment, and little more. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the issue. It is assumed that those councils are concerned only with employment. About 75 per cent of the prospectus is devoted to employment. I have read the whole prospectus, but perhaps I may quote from the introduction. It states:
	"The key objectives underlying our proposals in Learning to Succeed are to create a new system which will: be responsive to the needs of individuals and employers; promote employability for individuals ...; help employers".
	It continues with another four or five objectives, but the first three objectives are clearly and solely employment related. After all, 40 per cent of the learning and skills council members, plus the chairman, will be employment or business related. Indeed, Amendment No. 22 adds fuel to the fire. It adds to the impression that the main function of the LSCs will be to prepare people for work. I fully recognise the nation's need for a fully trained and educated workforce. I also recognise the importance for each individual of being able to obtain well-paid and fulfilling employment. However, if the learning and skills council does not also genuinely address other social and personal needs, a great opportunity will have been lost.
	Apart from skills for employment, the main emphasis in the prospectus is on exclusion and disadvantage and I cannot find fault with that. Indeed, I am enthusiastic about it. However, it does not make sense to fight to reduce social disadvantage today while failing to address potential social disadvantage for the next generation. Surely the knowledge and skills required to live together as a community, to be good citizens and, above all, to be good parents are also tremendously important.
	In Committee, the Government rejected my proposal for a mission statement, which I believed would cover the issue, and for a definition of "education" to appear on the face of the Bill. I now bring forward a more modest proposal which would place on the face of the Bill a counterbalance to the repeated references to, and emphasis on, preparation for employment which appear in the Bill and prospectus. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
	I shall now speak to two other amendments in the group. They are Amendments Nos. 38 and 72 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also have our names. My noble friend Lord Sandwich cannot be in his place tonight and he has asked me to speak to his amendments.
	These amendments address one of the dimensions of the wider aspects of education. I refer to global and international understanding, and the ability to communicate and be involved in the globalisation with which we are confronted. Global issues are part of our lives, be it via the food we eat, our jobs, the clothes we wear, television, sports, the Internet or increased opportunities for travel, to mention but a few examples.
	The national curriculum document refers to learning in a global society. It states:
	"education must enable us to respond positively to the opportunities and challenges of the rapidly changing world in which we live and work. In particular, we need to be prepared to engage as individuals, parents, workers and citizens with economic, social and cultural change, including the continued globalisation of the economy and society".
	I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give the House strong assurances that the wider cultural and international context of the national, international and global dimensions of education will not be omitted from the objectives of the LSC.
	I beg to move Amendment No. 23.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I, too, put my name to the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and I am sorry that he cannot be here to move them. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for speaking to them so well in his absence. It may be that when the noble Earl reads what has been said, he may want to speak on these important issues at Third Reading.
	I put my name to the amendments because they raise important issues. We find ourselves concentrating on preparing people for work without having a wider vision of global issues. I thought that we could have a useful debate on that subject and remind ourselves that learning for life involves learning about the world, global issues, international development and so forth.
	I offer brief but heartfelt support to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I understand and share his concerns. It is right and probably inevitable that the Bill concentrates on preparing young people for the workplace. But we are not talking about learning for work; we are talking about learning for life. Work is part of life, but in this place it seems that work is not all of life. Therefore, if we are talking about learning for life, we must pay proper and full regard to the issues which are described extremely well in the noble Lord's amendment. I congratulate him on redrafting it.
	I am pleased that the noble Lord has raised his concerns because I share them. In terms of the Bill, I am not sure how best to approach them, but we are being given an opportunity to register them and to hear the Minister's response.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the others in the group. The danger is that the proper and admirable concentration on getting young people into work may give a wrong impression in particular to teachers and pupils in schools in which the new council will be responsible for pupils of 16 plus. It might seem to them to overemphasise the vocational aspects of education and to forget an equally important aspect; that is, to give young people interest, excitement, creativity and opportunities for pleasure and involvement in issues in which they would not otherwise have been involved or understood sufficiently if they had not been in further education.
	I believe that in particular as regards this age group and those who may have been disaffected during adolescence, it is important to emphasise the pleasure and possible excitement of education as well as the monetary reward and the possibility of contributing to society. Therefore, I believe that in our discussions on education we should not completely omit the concept of life outside the workplace. That is why the noble Lord's formula is particularly important and I support his amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the best schools and colleges in this country get this aspect right and therefore the amendment is not necessary for them. A large proportion of children have the joy of support at home and in school and receive a good education. There is no concern about them, but the noble Lord has spent a good deal of his life concerned about other children who do not have support at home. For them, school and college are often their only anchor.
	The point that is being made is therefore most important. The best schools and colleges deepen intellect, raise understanding, and widen young people's knowledge and experience. They are encouraged not only to read the textbook relating to a particular course, but to read around and wider than the subject and to gain enjoyment from that.
	When I pressed for business representation on the council, the noble Lord expressed his anxiety that the Bill appears to be concerned only with getting young people into work. I want to support the Government in the sense that getting young people into work is a real mission. Nowadays, very few people can go through life without having to earn a living. We know that the quality of life for a large number of people and their families would be much enhanced if they could partake in the world of work. Therefore, I have no difficulty in supporting the Bill's main thrust of getting young people sufficiently equipped to take their place in the world of work.
	However, I do not want to see one aspect pursued exclusively, at the expense of the other. I believe that the widening and broadening of education go hand in hand and that the wording of Amendment No. 23 particularly brings that together. I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment. I believe that it would help all of us to understand that the Bill does not only focus narrowly on equipping someone to take their place in the world of work; it concerns improving the quality of life of the individual. I believe that that then spills out to the quality of life of everyone. There is a powerful argument for supporting the amendment. I do not believe that it at all inhibits the main policy aim of the Government to get as many of our young people as possible into the world of work.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, support everything that has been said in support of Amendment No. 23. It is enormously important that we do not focus only on the skills required for work, although the range of those skills is fairly broad. Other things that lie immediately alongside them, such as parenting and citizenship, are equally important for a child of that age. There is also a need to offer to someone who is just growing wings--someone who is gaining the ability to act independently and to be independent--the opportunity to catch a glimpse of what is out there in the world and what else is available to them beyond the confines of home, school and the town in which they have been brought up. It is enormously important that those things should be on offer to children of that age.
	If she was involved in further education at the time when the FEFC came into being, the noble Baroness will remember the difficulties that sixth-form colleges had in preserving their extra-curricular curriculum, as it were, against the pressures of the funding formula, which were designed merely to fund units of work on A-levels. Sixth-form colleges were to be funded at exactly the same rate as FE colleges, but FE colleges provided none of the extra-curricular provisions available in sixth-form colleges. Finally, the problem was solved through various fudges and by allowing sixth-form colleges to be funded for courses outside the immediate A-level provision. In fact, that extra-curricular provision has survived well in sixth forms.
	However, when faced with a new piece of legislation and a new body, it is difficult to settle the argument between those who provide extra-curricular provisions and those who do not as to what the rate of funding for a particular course should be. I believe that the Government should make it quite clear that there will be separate funding for courses outside the main A-level or, indeed, the main vocational tramlines. To my mind, it would be much better if the opportunities available in sixth-form colleges were extended to those training in FE colleges, rather than, as almost happened at the time of the creation of the FEFC, a narrowing of opportunities for those in sixth-form colleges and, with this Bill, those in sixth-forms in schools.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely sympathetic to a great deal of what has been said in this short debate on these amendments. The Government's vision of the learning age is to build a new culture of learning which should not only underpin national competitiveness and personal prosperity but also encourage creativity and innovation and help to build a more cohesive society. We want everyone to benefit from the opportunities that learning brings in terms of personal growth and the enrichment of communities. Certainly, I entirely accept that the issue of employability should not in any way preclude people from learning for its own sake.
	Again, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, about the pleasures and excitements of learning. We want all our young people to realise that it is there if they would only reach out and take it. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that there should not be an exclusive emphasis on getting young people into work, important as that is. I do not believe that any of those things are mutually exclusive. Our aim is to equip people with the right skills for the global world in which we all now live. We agree wholeheartedly that the values and purposes which underpin education include enabling individuals to respond positively to the opportunities and challenges of our rapidly changing world.
	However, both the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Northbourne, are quite right that education should engage on all levels with economic, social and cultural change, including changes that arise from being part of a global world. Those principles are already reflected in the national curriculum, and we should reflect them in post-16 learning as well. However, if noble Lords care to look again at the introduction to the Learning and Skills Prospectus, they will see clearly that our objectives embrace all the issues mentioned in this debate.
	That is why the LSC will, for example, continue to support the various EU training projects and programmes, such as Socrates and Leonardo, which offer young people an opportunity to benefit from a different learning experience, not only within the EU but also in eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Since 1995, over 80,000 young people from the UK have undertaken education, training, youth placements or exchanges abroad. I believe that that is greatly to be welcomed. In the future, those and similar ventures will be one route by which the LSC can encourage a sharing of experiences and effect a mutual understanding of the challenges to be faced in the context of the global world.
	I very much welcome the valuable work of the Development Education Association in raising awareness of the need for people to have the skills for a global society. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here today, has close contacts with the Development Education Association. However, I do not believe that the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others are necessary to achieve the objectives that we all share. As I said, the LSC prospectus sets out the values which we intend the LSC to pursue. They will continue to be reinforced by guidance which the Secretary of State gives to the council.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will recognise that much of what I have said already is relevant to his concerns. We do not view education in a narrow way, and the duties of the LSC and CETW are not framed in a narrow way either. The education which they are required to provide for young people must be suitable to their requirements and needs in a very broad sense. Those needs will vary greatly and, in many cases, provision will not be directed towards entering the workplace but rather to higher levels of education, whether at college or at university.
	Such provision should certainly include the enrichment activities to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred. They are a very important supplement to formal education which leads to qualifications. In addition to vocational education, social, physical and recreational education will be included, as will organised leisure time occupations connected with such education. Therefore, the noble Lord should be in no doubt that our shared intentions and aspirations are already reflected in the Bill, taken together with the related legislation already on the statute book, and that "education" has the broader meaning that he seeks. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will not feel that he needs to press his amendment.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am tremendously grateful to the noble Baroness for those very helpful and encouraging remarks. I wish also to express my gratitude to the number of noble Lords who contributed most effectively and who added to the thoughts that I have had on this subject. I believe we are all agreed that we need a balance between life skills for work and those for non-work. I am delighted that the noble Baroness shares that view.
	Of course, I shall read what the Minister said. However, my view is that that is fine but it does not say so in the Bill. Therefore, I may very well bring back this amendment and press it at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 2, line 17, leave out paragraph (d) and insert--
	("(d) make the most cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective provision of services.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38A and 95 in my name. My noble friend Lord Pilkington will speak to Amendment No. 25.
	The Minister will know that I have very real reservations about the phrase,
	"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	One may be making provision for young people with learning disabilities. In sixth forms, one may be making provision for the teaching of minority subjects. A school may positively choose to have very small groups for a particular subject, perhaps due to fluctuations in numbers or it may be that only a small number of pupils want to take the subject but the school determines that that subject shall be taught. In those cases, disproportionate expenditure will be incurred. It seems to me that the test should be not whether the expenditure is disproportionate but whether it makes the best and most cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective delivery of services.
	If one has that test where expenditure is considered by those making the judgment to be disproportionate, it may be that there is a very good reason for that, and that should be a proper defence.
	The wording in Clauses 2 and 3 and in the Welsh clause, Clause 31, merely refer to making the best use of resources. The meaning of the term "best use" is an extremely subjective issue. Therefore, I prefer the wording in the amendment which refers to,
	"make the most cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective provision of services".
	That is a more objective test than trying to determine what is "best use". It certainly allows expenditure to be consistent with good service delivery; but it also allows the providers of education and training to be disproportionate in their expenditure if they have good reason for doing so. That good reason will be fully accountable through the inspection process, the budgeting allocations, and the inspectorate which will make value-for-money judgments.
	I support my noble friend Lord Pilkington who will speak to his Amendment No. 25. In a way, that also touches on the issue of schools and colleges determining for themselves how they will spend their money as long as they are fully accountable for those decisions. As I say, the test should be more objective than that which is set out in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as noble Lords know, my great concern is school sixth forms. Like my noble friend, I am worried about the narrowness of Clause 2(3)(d) which refers to,
	"making the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	The danger is that purely utilitarian judgments will be made. In view of the universal support for the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, of broader education, I believe that this business of finance governing everything should be looked at very carefully.
	School sixth forms fulfil many of the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. They are more than just practical instruments for teaching. They have a wider agenda of orchestras, sports teams and religious and moral education. In sparsely populated areas in particular, they are often rather small and certainly, because of the extensive services which they provide, are somewhat more expensive.
	The Minister assured us in Committee that her intentions were not to follow pure economy and not to let the chequebook govern education. Therefore, Clause 2(3)(d) seems to me a contradiction of what she said so clearly in Committee.
	My amendment would put into a very short phrase the noble intentions of the noble Baroness. In fact--dare I suggest?--I have done her a service in that I have placed her morality, of which she assured us in Committee, in a sentence and met all her noble hopes for the ideals of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It would certainly help school sixth forms in rural areas, which are inevitably small but often excellent, to resist closure if the learning and skills council followed Clause 2(3)(d) to the letter. Therefore, I suggest that without loss of face and in this season of Lent, fulfilling a noble hope, the noble Baroness could accept my amendment and go to confession with a clear heart. I commend Amendment No. 25 to the House.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I do not think I want to follow that too closely, but I wish the Minister well in rather more secular terms.
	I have much sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I hope that the Minister will offer him the reassurance that he seeks. I certainly believe that school sixth forms should not be closed down solely because of their size. There are important issues here about the quality of provision. The virtue of being small does not necessarily mean that the quality is not good. Indeed, often, the reverse is the case. But it will almost always mean that such sixth forms have higher unit costs, which gives rise to the concerns to which other noble Lords have referred in relation to making the best use of the council's resources.
	Perhaps I may return to the point which caused the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so much difficulty in Committee. I cannot see that it is necessary to add to the phrase,
	"make the best use of the Council's resources",
	the words,
	"and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	If you are making best use of the council's resources, you cannot make provision which gives rise to disproportionate expenditure. However, I shall not make more of that. We got excited about it last time. I still think that it is unnecessary.
	I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Perhaps this is about understanding the use of words and expressions. The words,
	"the most cost-effective use of resources",
	suggest to me, perhaps because I lived for so many years under a Conservative government--I use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington--a "purely utilitarian" judgment. I much prefer the expression "best value". I did not invent either expression; neither did my party. The Bill refers to "best use" but perhaps the two are synonymous. However, "best value" implies a judgment which determines value as distinct from cost. It seems to me that my interpretation of the noble Baroness's amendment--I accept fully that it is not her interpretation or intention--would mean that a small sixth form will not often be the most cost-effective way of using resources, but it might be providing the best value under those circumstances. That is an important difference.
	Therefore, although the two noble friends on the Conservative Benches believe themselves to be allied in their grouped amendments, were I ever to be a Minister responsible for this my view would be that they are contradictory and that the small sixth form of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is not the noble Baroness's most cost-effective use of resources. Therefore, if there are any more surprises tonight--if the noble Baroness intends to press her amendment to a Division, we shall on this occasion be with the Government.

Lord Bach: My Lords, having heard the comments--I nearly said "strictures"--of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to my noble friend, I wonder whether they are addressed to me also, as I have the pleasure of replying to these amendments. From our previous exchanges on a similar point, which went to a Division--the words are slightly different and although I should expect nothing less of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we really have divided already on the issue--the noble Baroness will be aware that we consider formulations based around cost effectiveness to be lacking and too one-dimensional.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the expression which the noble Baroness seeks to add to the Bill. It does not seem to support in the best possible way the case of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Value for money is achieved though balancing economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I cannot resist the temptation to use "the three Es" yet again. In our view that is expressed most succinctly in the Bill as it stands.
	However, the noble Baroness raised concerns about the meaning of "disproportionate expenditure". The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, expressed concern about the impact of the new arrangements upon sixth forms, particularly small rural sixth forms. The words we are discussing have already received--may I say it?--disproportionate attention in earlier debates on the duties of the LSC. It is evident that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord wish to be clearer about the meaning of those words. If they and the House will indulge me, I shall try to provide greater elucidation of them. It may take a little time, but I shall be as brief as possible. It is obviously an issue which is causing genuine concern.
	First, let us consider the subsection in each clause where the words appear. In each case, we find that the LSC in England and the CETW in Wales must apply four considerations as to how they perform the relevant duty referred to in the opening words of the subsection. There are three matters of which the councils must take account: first, in relation to facilities; secondly, in relation to the ability and aptitude of different persons; and, thirdly, the facilities that might be secured by others. The fourth matter on which we are focusing attention follows. The exact words are,
	"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	The key words are the first seven,
	"make the best use of the Council's resources".
	We remain satisfied that those words are the best formulation. For the reasons explained previously, we believe that that formulation is superior to terms such as "cost-effective" which would require perhaps a less balanced approach to the use of public funds, particularly in respect of quality.
	Immediately following those first seven words there appear the words, "and in particular". Those three words carry a particular weight. The words that follow them do not introduce an entirely new and separate test which the council must meet. If that were the case, there would be five distinct and separated considerations which the councils would have to take into account. Rather, they refine the meaning of the first seven words. The qualification that they introduce is concerned with the reverse of achieving the best use of council resources. If the councils are contemplating expenditure which, in proportion to normal use of resources, would not be good value for money, then clearly such expenditure would be disproportionate to the norm and the councils must avoid it.
	A debate over eight years ago covered similar ground. On 9th December 1991, at columns 569 to 572 of Hansard, the then government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, who, I am sure, was a colleague of the noble Baroness and other Members opposite in that government, pointed to precedents for that type of formulation going back to the Education Act 1944. He gave a practical example of what was meant. His words are perhaps worth quoting:
	"What the Bill requires is that a council should not build an expensive engineering laboratory for a handful of students when there is another laboratory just down the road. But if the provision is proportionate to the need, even if it be expensive, this clause would not rule it out".--[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 571.]
	That is good sense with which we agree. Those words would apply equally to a small rural school for which there is a need, or expensive provision for a disabled student. I say once and for the record, in view of concerns raised previously, that none of the Bill's provisions restricts either the LSC or CETW from spending money on expensive provision of whatever sort. We all know that sometimes we must pay more for something that is of the quality we want in comparison to a similar entity of shoddy quality. We all know that sometimes something is expensive by its very nature. I repeat: neither council is prevented from paying for expensive provision. But surely it is right that the council should be required to take such matters into account when spending taxpayers' money to ensure that it is not spending money unnecessarily. That made good sense then, and it makes good sense now.
	I hope that I have explained our thinking. It is on that basis that we invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suppose that I should be flattered. This is about the fourth time today I have heard that what the previous government did was so good that we must repeat it. I must tell the Minister that my frustrations over many of these issues are well known in the department. I dislike intensely the argument produced for Ministers--it was produced for me--that because something has always been done a certain way, it should always be done that way and that because a form of wording has been the same since Adam was a boy, we should continue to use it. I do not accept that as an intellectually valid defence.
	The Minister painstakingly explained the use of the word "particular". However, that word does not refer to the first seven words, but to what follows,
	"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	That is all that is stated. There is no other qualification whatever. It is true, as the Minister accepts, that there will be occasions when disproportionate expenditure must legitimately be made. The Minister gave my noble friend's example of an expensive engineering workshop being set up when there is another one close by. By anyone's judgment that would be deemed unacceptable, disproportionate expenditure. However, there are many examples where provision for young people with learning disabilities must be a great deal more expensive than that for young people without learning disabilities. There will be instances in rural areas where provision is disproportionately expensive compared to that provided for areas where schools are much closer together in towns and cities which have more facilities.
	I do not believe that, on the face of the Bill, disproportionate expenditure can be avoided. I accept the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about value for money. I had hoped that through the wording of Amendment No. 24 I was introducing the notion of value for money. I did not use the term "cost-effective use of resources" on its own because that stipulation is linked with a second point relating to consistency with effective services; in other words, if a provision is not consistent with effective services then it is not cost effective. Putting the two together, I qualified the first part of my amendment by saying that it had to be consistent with the use of resources.
	I am tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to find a way to introduce the words "value for money" as opposed to,
	"cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective provision of services".
	It is important to make it clear beyond doubt that local authorities, councils when making funding provision, and even employers under the voluntary sector making provision should be allowed to do so quite legitimately, and on the basis of making good judgment on educational grounds. I believe that should be acceptable. The Bill states:
	"in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	For that reason, despite the fact that it has been used historically and by my government, I still do not believe that it is an answer to my concern. However, I shall go away and try to "Topefy" my amendment and bring it back at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
	Page 2, line 18, at end insert--
	("( ) Nothing in subsection (3) shall prevent the Council from providing facilities that only, by nature of their size, have higher unit costs than other facilities.").

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, there will be much discussion on the amendments and much work in smoke-filled rooms. Although I am not happy that my amendment is not to be on the face of the Bill, I share the concerns of my noble friend, and do not intend to move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Education and training for persons over 19]:
	[Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 2, line 41, at end insert--
	("( ) in relation to subsection (1)(c) above, take account of any undue burden falling on small and medium-sized businesses, or voluntary sector providers;").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 36 deals with a concern which sounds like a small concern, but is important. Clause 3(1) states:
	"The Council must secure the provision of reasonable facilities for".
	The facilities are then listed. Clause 3(1)(c) refers to,
	"organised leisure-time occupation connected with such education".
	My particular concern is that some of the provision will be made by small and medium-sized businesses. Indeed, some parts of the voluntary sector will also be involved. I should like to think that there is flexibility here. My amendment provides that in securing such reasonable facilities connected with education, the burden of cost should not be a disadvantage to small and medium-sized businesses. Therefore, the council should take that into account when approving courses by other providers.
	That is important. The Government cannot achieve their aims and objectives without the full involvement of the business sector. We all know that by far the largest proportion of companies in this country, over 90 per cent, have fewer than 100 employees. An even higher proportion, between 94 to 95 per cent, have fewer than 10 employees. Although the remaining few per cent employ almost half the workforce, we are referring to a large number of companies without which many local areas will not be able to achieve the Government's objectives.
	We should not in any way downgrade the importance of the wider provision of facilities for young people in education. This refers back to the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about widening education and not being too narrowly focused on education and skills training. However, we should be mindful of the difficulty of providing in a workplace sports or leisure facilities, for example, which can be expensive. That is not to say that imagination cannot be used. Councils should take into account that if they need to hire a local football ground or local schools facilities, and so forth, there will be a cost. Such costs should be considered and taken into account in making such provision. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that I can make the noble Baroness happy by explaining briefly how we see this clause.
	Clause 3(1)(c) constitutes a duty placed on the LSC, not on providers. The LSC would be able to fund organised leisure-time occupation provided in connection with education if it was made by a small or medium-sized business or voluntary sector provider. However, it is important to note that no requirement is placed on such providers to make such provision.
	Nothing is mandatory for them as a result of this clause. We are not placing any new burdens on them. It is the responsibility of the learning and skills council to ensure that reasonable facilities of this sort are available. Business and voluntary providers may want to make such provision, but that remains a matter for them. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, sought reassurance on this precise point in Committee. I am pleased to confirm, using her own words, that:
	"there will not be a requirement on employers to provide leisure and recreational facilities which are entirely beyond their means".--[Official Report, 8/2/2000; col. 568.]
	We shall certainly keep a close eye on the arrangements. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his hugely helpful reply. Perhaps I may state my understanding so that there is no doubt. I understand that the council will have to secure the provision but that the council securing the provision will not be the provider. The council will use local authorities, workplaces, the voluntary sector, other educational outlets, colleges and so forth, to make such provision. However, I understand that the council must ensure that all young people receive reasonable leisure facilities in addition to proper education and training.
	I should like a specific assurance that the council will not use its funding arrangements to pressurise providers to make such leisure facility arrangements. In other words, not only must the council secure the provision of reasonable facilities, as the noble Lord stated, but in doing so, it will be the responsibility of the council to see that the provisions are funded and not that the funding will be required from the providers.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am happy to give that reassurance to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 2, line 43, at end insert--
	("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment Nos. 38 and 38A not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Encouragement of education and training]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("appropriate to their needs").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39, I return to a debate we had at previous stages of the Bill. I am still concerned about the words "appropriate to their needs", which are important.
	Much has been said about young people who are not finding their way into the world of work. A great deal of effort is being made by the Government, through their policies for inclusion, to persuade people back into the workplace. I gave examples of people whom I met in the north-east where I was involved as a Minister. Too often I met young people who were constantly being shunted into courses which were not relevant to their needs, which were wholly inappropriate, or which they had already done and were therefore repetitious.
	Education and training should not only be appropriate to the needs of an individual, which will be subject to other amendments; it should fit in with the individual's work pattern and the work available in the area. Clause 4 states that the council must encourage individuals to undergo post-16 education and training. I do not want it to be taken as read that that will be appropriate to their needs. We know that in practice that is not always so. I believe there should be an obligation on the providers and on the councils, both national and local, to ensure as far as possible that education and training should be appropriate to the needs of young people. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, we debated this issue at some length at Committee stage. The point made at that stage still remains valid. There is much waste of resources involved in inappropriate education and training for those over 16 years of age. Young people often do not know what they want and receive little or no help in making choices. That is why they need information, advice and guidance about the choices available to them and which might best suit them as individuals, given their talents and preferences and the local situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made clear.
	What worries us is that the new Connexion service aimed at making sure that those who at the moment drop out of mainstream education and training are brought back in and helped to make those choices, does not necessarily provide for the 90 per cent who remain in mainstream education, but who still need guidance. At the universities we count the cost of poor decisions in the growing drop-out rate among first year undergraduates. It is a waste of time for these young people, who then have to start again on another course. It is a waste of public resources in terms of the costs of provision and support which are frequently borne by the state.
	But there is a less obvious waste. I was talking last week to people from the ABPI. They have recently drawn attention to the unsuitable courses which many of their recruits take in modular degrees, pointing out that proper guidance at the appropriate stage is vital in making choices. Careers teachers in schools are not enough. They can provide information and advice, but they are not necessarily fully conversant with the guidance issues. We have trained professionals to provide guidance at postgraduate level, the so-called NVQ4, to provide precisely that sort of guidance. If we are going to make the best use of the potential of our young people, it is extremely important that the education and training that they receive is guided towards what is appropriate to their needs. I therefore support the amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness will receive reiteration of the assurances that I made in Committee on this point. The clause places a specific duty on the LSC to promote lifelong learning by encouraging people to undertake education and training. As I said last time, it would be unreasonable for the LSC to promote learning which was anything but appropriate to the needs of the individual receiving it.
	The education and training to which this clause refers must be, under the terms of Clauses 2 and 3, suitable to the requirements of those who receive it. In Committee the noble Baroness made the excellent point that people, especially young people, need someone to guide them--the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said the same thing today--about the appropriate kind of education and training to guide them into the workforce. We would agree. The principle of effective support and guidance for young people lies at the heart of our strategy for the Connexion service. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on that service now, tempting though it may be. I believe that we shall have time for that when debating some of tomorrow's amendments.
	Where the Government part company with this amendment is that we do not believe that adding a qualification to the duty on the LSC to encourage individuals to undergo education and training will have any effect in addressing the needs of young people for guidance. We see the position very much as the noble Baroness does, but we do not believe that we need to add this provision to the Bill itself.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is helpful because it reinforces a point that the Government have made. There is a flavour of naivety about the idea that all education and training from now on will be matched absolutely to the individual needs of a young person. But I accept what is intended. The matter is now on the face of the Bill at least twice and probably at Second Reading as well. That is important. I believe that it is something that will be returned to, perhaps, sadly, through tribunals, which is the only recourse that anyone would have to prove disproportionate provision.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the kind of examples I have in mind are not sufficiently powerful--though they may be a total mismatch for the individual--to take to a court or a tribunal. Who would be in a position to do so anyway? At the end of the day there would always be the defence that the procedure was followed and the course provider or the council responsible for making the provision had deemed it appropriate at the time to the needs of the young person and they were simply wrong. The Minister used encouraging words. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Financial resources: conditions]:

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 4, line 12, after ("may") insert ("after consulting providers or their representatives and such other persons as it sees fit").

Lord Tope: My Lords, we move now to Clause 6 of the Bill, which gives the Learning and Skills Council quite sweeping powers to impose conditions on any funding which it provides. No one questions the right of a funder to impose reasonable conditions--I hesitate to define the word "reasonable"--or to ensure that they are met. That is quite right, normal and entirely proper. But there is widespread concern among providers over the extent of the powers suggested in this clause. There seems to be considerable erosion of the autonomy of the further education sector. There is particular concern about the specific reference to the imposition of fees and so on.
	We know that the Government consider all this to be necessary and appropriate. The purpose of this amendment is to require the funder--the council in this case--before imposing such conditions, to consult with the provider or provider's appropriate representation. I do not believe that that is in any way an extension to bureaucracy; indeed, I would hope that it was normal good practice and could reduce possible bureaucracy caused by the imposition of unreasonable or unworkable conditions.
	I hope that this amendment encapsulates what should be normal good practice and what should happen anyway. I urge the Government to accept it because it would go some way towards allaying the fears that have been aroused, rightly or wrongly, in the FE sector by the fairly wide-ranging provisions of this clause. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that this amendment would impose constraints on the ability of the Learning and Skills Council to exercise flexible judgment about the financial agreements that it will need to reach with providers. The FEFC has a financial relationship with the relatively homogeneous group of providers, principally colleges of further education and some institutions in the higher education sector. The LSC, through local branches, will have direct financial relationships with several thousand providers, including employers, colleges, LEAs and voluntary organisations. It must have the ability to tailor its arrangements and should be able to do that flexibly. We believe that it would be inappropriate to impose a superstructure of statutory bureaucracy--if the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will forgive me for using that word--around these arrangements.
	Having said that, we expect the LSC to consult providers about funding arrangements. In the same way the department is currently undertaking extensive consultation about future funding arrangements, not least because the Secretary of State will need to consider carefully what conditions he may wish to attach to the funds that he will make available to the LSC. It did not take an Act of Parliament for such consultation to take place; it is the accepted thing to do. There is nothing unusual here. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I did not follow that explanation at all. I do not understand how a requirement to consult, which the noble Lord said would be the norm anyway and certainly should be the norm under good practice, "imposes constraints", to use his words. The Bill still gives the council the power to impose conditions. All I am suggesting is that before imposing the conditions it should discuss them with the provider. That is not in the least consistent with imposing constraints.
	I understand the need to tailor arrangements, the need for flexibility and so forth. Again, discussing conditions with providers before they are imposed does not seem to inhibit that in any way; on the contrary, it is a co-operative approach which I thought this Government endorsed. It involves discussing with providers whether or not conditions are right and appropriate. If agreement is reached, so much the better; the situation will work well. If at the end of the day agreement cannot be reached, the council still has the power to impose such conditions as it wishes. It will be under no constraints that prevent it from doing so. I do not accept the explanation. I do not understand it. It is entirely unreasonable. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 4, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert--
	("(a) require the Council to be allowed access to relevant accounts and documents and to be given rights in relation to computers, associated apparatus and materials which have been used in association with Council-funded provision;").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when we last spoke on this matter the noble Lord, Lord Bach, accused both myself and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, of becoming somewhat overwrought on the issue.

Lord Tope: My Lords, overexcited.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, overwrought or overexcited; I do not recall which. However, I plead guilty. I am concerned about this issue, mostly because in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said,
	"We argue that ... the effect of Amendment No. 64 would be to deny the council the ability to inspect relevant providers' records, whether written or held on computers so as to establish whether taxpayers' money had been used properly".--[Official Report, 8/2/00; col. 634.]
	I refer to "relevant providers"; the Bill does not. The Bill simply says, in imposing conditions, that,
	"The conditions may ... require the Council or a person designated by it to be allowed access to a person's accounts and documents and to be given rights in relation to a person's computers and associated apparatus and material".
	It is for that reason that I press my amendment. I want to remove the council's right to have access to,
	"a person's accounts and documents",
	and substitute for it rights to access documents and technology used in association with councils so that there is a relevance in relation to both the equipment being inspected and audited, and the specific person. We knew that there would always be a relevance to the institution, but the idea, for example, that if I were a lecturer in an FE college, someone could come to my home and inspect something which had no relevance whatever to the fact that all that I was doing in relation to the course was housed and located in the college and/or college-related buildings, is unacceptable.
	I am concerned about the fact that the provision is not qualified in relation to relevance. It is because of the words the noble Lord himself used and his misunderstanding of what my amendment related to that I wish to press Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I shall try to avoid becoming overwrought again. I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. As drafted, the provisions of Clause 2(a) are wide-ranging and far-reaching and I am not happy with them. Nor am I sure that the noble Baroness's amendment has it quite right. I am wholly with her in what she is seeking to achieve; I am not certain that the amendment achieves it.
	I realise that I cannot now introduce an amendment, but I would be a little reassured if we took the last words from subsection (b) and included them within subsection (a); that is,
	"for the purpose of carrying out its functions".
	That may provide some reassurance. I drop that into the debate now though it is possible that we shall come back to this at another stage. As I say, I cannot support the provision as it stands in the Bill; nor am I convinced that the noble Baroness's noble attempt to make it better--and it does make it better--is the right substitute. I hope we can consider this problem a bit further.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 involves two points. First, the noble Baroness is seeking to restrict the rights of access the learning and skills council would enjoy in connection with ensuring the proper use of public funds. We appreciate the points she makes. She expressed concerns, as she did in Committee, among other things that the clause, as drafted, might extend to the home premises of, for example, a tutor at an FE college. I should like to reassure her that her anxiety is unfounded.
	Clause 6 is underpinned by subsection (1), which secures that the conditions the council may set attach to its provision of financial resources. Under Clause 6(2)(a), the LSC will be able to ensure it could have access to the accounts and premises of those bodies it funds. But it will have a funding relationship with the governing bodies of FE colleges, not with the teaching or other staff that the governing body chooses to employ. Clause 6(2)(a) simply allows the LSC to have access to information and materials held by the bodies it funds--access it will need if it is to secure the proper use of those public funds.
	The noble Baroness also expressed anxiety that the power would allow access to documents and other information that are quite unrelated to the education and training provision funded by the LSC. That concern is quite unfounded. The LSC is a statutory body and can only exercise the powers granted to it by Parliament as a result of this Bill. It may not act outside its power; that is ultra vires. Hence it may not examine materials that are unrelated to its functions. That goes without saying and applies to all statutory corporations like the LSC, and makes the amendment fundamentally unnecessary.
	However, I remind the noble Baroness that we will later be debating government amendments to ensure that the Secretary of State can intervene if the LSC acts unreasonably. That will apply to this provision as it does to other LSC powers. It would be open to any LSC-funded provider to approach the Secretary of State if it considered that access rights were being misused. That is an important safeguard. Moreover, if the LSC acted ultra vires, that would also be grounds for an approach to the Secretary of State or the courts. That is yet a further safeguard.
	Our second point is that we believe the amendment would have a serious impact which the noble Baroness may not intend. The LSC should of course exercise its ability to delegate access rights prudently and carefully. But the amendment would remove entirely the LSC's ability to involve third parties to act as its agents in this respect. In most circumstances, the LSC would be the body to use access rights to those it funds. Unfortunately, however, it is the case that, when things go seriously wrong, specialist resources and expertise are sometimes required and those may not be readily available within the council.
	Although I cannot go into details of specific cases because of the risk of endangering current investigations, an example might be the specialist resources which the department has for investigating cases of suspected fraud. Those may be, and have been, purchased as needed by a body such as the FEFC, and in future the LSC. On occasion it is necessary to purchase specialist audit resources. A restriction such as this would have a real effect and might prevent current investigations from reaching a conclusion.
	Obviously, the noble Baroness would not wish to hinder or prevent action that could lead to the recovery of misused public funds or the prosecution of those who have misused them. The £6 billion of public funds for which the chief executive must account to Parliament personally is a very large sum of money. The LSC must be able to investigate a case properly. On occasions it may need to deploy resources that are not available in-house. This is not a theoretical matter that we are discussing, nor is it simply a debating point. These are matters of actual practice and, of course, of genuine public concern.
	To summarise, the provision that the noble Baroness seeks to amend in Clause 6 is well precedented and entirely standard. I wrote to the noble Baroness on 28th February to give details of the current use of comparable powers by the further and the higher education funding councils, the TECs and the access rights enjoyed by the National Audit Office, not to mention the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors. I assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing unusual here. I hope that this explanation may reassure her to some extent.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat again that I have no wish to see people acting fraudulently or abusing or misusing resources provided by the taxpayer. Therefore, it is precisely for that reason that I want any inquiry to be focused where I believe the suspicion lies.
	The noble Lord said that my amendment would deny the council the possibility of using a third body. All the way through this Bill, and all the way through most statutes, there are references to the Secretary of State using a power to do this, that or the other. In almost all cases we know that it is not the Secretary of State who, in person, will do it. It will be someone appointed by him, someone who will do it in his name. It will, in effect, be a third person.
	The same applies to the council. Dotted throughout the Bill are references to the council being given powers to secure facilities, to provide this, that and the other. Again, it will not necessarily be the council that secures that provision. It will be someone delegated by the council. In some cases it will be someone at third and fourth remove from the council. If it was the wish of the council to call in the police, there is nothing in my amendment to prevent it doing that. If the council wished to bring in the auditors, there is nothing to prevent it doing that. I am not so sure that I accept that defensive argument from the Minister.
	The Minister is absolutely right to say that the council will only be able to exercise powers given to it by Parliament. My amendment is precisely about that. In Clause 6 power is being given to,
	"require the Council or a person designated by it to be allowed access"--
	with no word or aspect of relevance about it at all--
	"to a person's accounts and documents and to be given rights in relation to a person's computers and associated apparatus and material".
	One would expect, in practice, for there to be access to the college, college facilities, college-related premises and facilities that may be housed in them. But there needs to be some protection of the individual against the council or its appointee going to the personal belongings of a tutor. That is what is stated in Clause 6(2)(a).
	I am decidedly unhappy with the provision. I am decidedly unhappy with the Minister's response to me. If I have the wording wrong, then I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to do something about the wording of Clause 6(2)(a). Perhaps they should even pick up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who linked it with Clause 6(2)(b). One way or another, this is wrong. For that reason I wish to press my amendment, in the hope that the noble Lord will either come back with something or accept my amendment, and then leave it to counsel to put it right.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 100.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in moving that consideration of amendments on Report be now adjourned, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Safety

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote their road safety strategy.
	My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I have the honour to be president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The society is a powerful force in promoting road safety and therefore has an unsurpassed interest in the development of this country's road safety strategy. However, the interest in which I am most delighted is that declared by the Prime Minister, who himself introduced the Government's road safety strategy a short while ago. It includes some very tough overall targets: to reduce in 10 years by 40 per cent all road accidents and to reduce accidents to children by 50 per cent over the course of 10 years.
	It might be thought that the Prime Minister is particularly concerned about the latter due to the impending arrival of the Blairs' fourth child. There is no doubt that the issue focuses the minds of soon-to-be parents, but I am sure that the Prime Minister is responding to an even more profound public issue than that. I refer to the sense of shock that is felt throughout the nation at how poorly our figures for child safety compare with those of our European counterparts.
	As we know, vastly greater numbers of people, both adults and children, are killed and maimed on our roads than on our railways, yet the most enormous public debate takes place after each railway accident. Such accidents are enormously tragic but involve much smaller numbers than the daily carnage on our roads. That partly helps to explain the wholly unjustified degree of complacency in society about our road statistics. The British feel that they compare rather well with other drivers. They feel that they are more considerate. It is the case that in our country, as in other developed countries, the number of road accidents per mile driven has been falling for a considerable period of time. There have also been improvements in in-car safety through the better design of cars. But we are surely not entitled to be complacent when we look at the child accident figures.
	A ready excuse is sometimes offered for those too. It is said that our urban environment is more obviously intense and that cars are closer to where people live and move about on pavements. However, serious research shows that that factor probably accounts for only half the number of accidents involving children. The other half of those dismal statistics is due to our failure to train our children sufficiently well in road safety. It is also a matter of bad driving.
	The Government have set several ambitious targets. However, one must remember that it took 20 years to implement the universal use of seatbelts and 20 years to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable. For that reason, to aim to take 10 years to secure a marked reduction in driving speeds is a pretty tall order, but it is an extremely important element of increasing safety in our urban and village environments.
	There is no doubt that speed kills. It is a major factor in one in three accidents. In accidents involving pedestrians, at 20 miles per hour one person in 10 will be killed. At 40 miles per hour, nine out of 10 will fail to survive. Improvements in car safety may have benefited the occupants of cars, but they have done little for cyclists and pedestrians.
	In their road safety strategy, the Government have placed great emphasis on the role of local authorities. I should like to ask the Minister to give an assurance that local authorities will be provided with sufficient specific resources to tackle these issues; that they will be effectively monitored on their performance; and that they will be assisted in implementing best practice. It is clear, for example, that we need the extensive deployment of 20 mph speed limits near schools. We also need extensive traffic-calming measures. We should not pretend that these are popular measures; yet we are asking local authorities largely to bear the brunt of taking decisions on these issues. Elected local authorities have the right to be concerned about their popularity. I say this only a couple of months before the next set of local elections.
	The Government have taken a number of important factors into account in their strategy. We need improved training on road safety issues for our children. We also need training for parents. I point out in particular a matter identified in the road safety strategy; namely, the experiment carried out in Drumchapel, near Glasgow. That project showed how parents contribute to the safety of their children.
	It is also quite clear that we need better standards of driving. That means that we should address in forthright terms whether the driving test is a sufficient test of motoring competence. I believe that it must be recognised that the present driving test is inadequate in several key respects as regards testing driving competence.
	An area that has particularly concerned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and which is also recognised in the road safety strategy, is that of the standard of driving among fleet drivers. That issue will need to be pursued with great vigour because improvements must be made. After all, those people drive the most on our roads. On average, a business or commercial driver will drive for many more thousands of miles than the ordinary private motorist. The management of occupational road risk is recognised in the strategy and is an issue on which the society has also been campaigning vigorously.
	In addition, we need to address an issue which I raised in this House last year, but which did not meet with wholehearted enthusiasm on the part of the Government. If we are doomed to live with a situation where for so many people the car has become a mobile office, we certainly need to introduce constraints on how office techniques are deployed at 40, 50 or 60 miles per hour. I draw particular attention to the use of mobile phones. It is not possible to concentrate on the road while at the same time receiving what may be in some cases important messages.
	Against that background, I emphasise that a great deal needs to be done. We need the Government to back their strategy with great vigour. Careful monitoring will be needed to see whether promises contained in the strategy are kept. I seek a reassurance from the Minister, whom I hold in high regard for the work that he has done so far, that the issues outlined in the report will be followed up.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for initiating this debate only a week after publication of the Government's road safety strategy. My contribution to the debate is offered from two perspectives; first, as chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance--an associate parliamentary group dedicated to reducing vehicle crime, and, secondly, as a past president of RoSPA. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, now holds that distinguished position. I wish him the very best of luck.
	I welcome in the strategy the extremely broad context across which the Government seek to reduce road casualties, especially the specific references made to both cycling and motorcycling, and the clear intention to seek support from all areas within both national and local government and society at large.
	I shall focus my remarks on where I consider that a partnership approach can best provide effective education and training for young adults to become responsible road users on both two and four wheels. While chapters 2 and 3 within the Tomorrow's Roads--Safer for Everybody strategy refer to this issue, one must also be mindful of the Government's response to the report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Young and Newly Qualified Drivers: Standards and Training, an inquiry to which the European Secure Vehicle Alliance submitted both written and verbal evidence.
	My assessment suggests, however, that there remains a significant gap in addressing the needs of 15 and 16 year-olds, especially as the new national curriculum makes specific reference to road safety only in key stages 1, 2 and 3--for children aged from five to 14 years. The Government's strategy papers outline in detail their thinking on how to increase the effectiveness of driver training once a candidate has applied for a provisional car driving licence at 17 years of age and older. However, little attention is focused on the critical years, those from 15 to 17, when the expectation and interest of young adults, as they anticipate becoming road users, is often overwhelming.
	Reference to the expansion of the Driving Standards Agency schools programme is welcome, as is the commitment to the provision of Internet material. I should also like to commend the British School of Motoring's new SIGNAL programme targeted at sixth form and FE colleges. However, surely we should aim to do far more.
	Perhaps I may remind the House that England and Wales enjoy one of the best road safety records across the developed world and yet have the worst vehicle crime records. Half of all convicted vehicle crime offenders are aged 16 or under. Over two-thirds are aged 21 or under. Bearing in mind that we are also aiming to achieve a targeted 30 per cent reduction in vehicle crime over the next five years, much will be gained by adopting shared strategies targeted at young people to reduce both vehicle crime and road accident casualties.
	One example of such an approach developed within the Avon and Somerset Constabulary and called Operation Impact involved considerable police and community effort in encouraging young people to take a responsible attitude to road usage. On average, 13 young people lost their lives in accidents involving stolen vehicles between 1992 and 1994. In 1997, there was only one fatality involving a stolen vehicle. I have no doubt that a sustained strategy, aimed at both crime and accident reduction, can achieve extraordinary results.
	The importance of communicating effectively with young people as they start to face the transition from school into adulthood has also been recognised by the Department for Education and Employment. Its concern in aiming to reduce truancy and school exclusions must be helpful in aiming to reduce crime and social exclusion. For a number of potentially disaffected students, an opportunity to learn about vehicles and road usage is undoubtedly effective in opening up pathways into employment or further training.
	Further, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 illustrated the commitment of the Home Office to tackle more effectively youth justice issues while also encouraging local authorities and the police to work in partnership with other community leaders to reduce crime and disorder. One should also be mindful that the Department of Health has also set 10-year targets to reduce accident death and serious injury rates. I therefore recommend a strategy entitled, "Community Education Involving Vehicles", which could contribute to the related strategies of the government departments I have mentioned.
	The ESVA has been associated with a number of community-based motor projects across the country, all working towards the shared objectives of reducing crime, collisions and social exclusion. I would commend the SKIDZ project based in High Wycombe. It has been able to take most advantage of the newly emerging strategies, as it has only been operating for the past 18 months. It aims to provide a staging post for 15 to 17 year-olds making the transition from school to college and/or employment.
	In conclusion, I urge that all government departments adopt the challenge of harnessing coherently the interest that many young people from the age of 15 have in vehicles and in passing their "riding and driving" tests in order to make our roads safer while at the same time reducing crime and offering our young people a pathway to becoming responsible citizens.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for giving us such an early opportunity to discuss the Government's road safety strategy. In his foreword to the Government's strategy document, the Minister said:
	"Safety is the most important responsibility of anyone involved in transport--whatever mode we are talking about".
	In its review of policy on speed management, the Government say at paragraph 14:
	"There are real benefits to industry, business, commuters and other motorists of being able to reach their destinations reasonably quickly".
	In paragraph 16 we find the phrase,
	"unnecessary suppression of speed could be damaging".
	I am afraid that government policy seems to continue to give greater emphasis to the reduction of journey times, as against the promotion of road safety. Some commentators suggest that this may be out of fear of the media and lobbyists portraying the motorist as being persecuted. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I suggest that it is the children who are killed or injured on the roads in Britain in numbers twice as great as in Germany and Holland who are the real victims of persecution.
	Of course we welcome the plan to reduce these casualty figures by 50 per cent by the year 2010, which, if achieved, would bring Britain to the same level that now obtains in Holland and Germany. But, in my opinion, the Government's road safety strategy is too timid a document and may be insufficient to achieve its objectives. I should like to give your Lordships two examples of faults in the present system.
	I have been involved in the planning and consultation of the proposed bypass at Marcham, which is on the A415 between Abingdon and Witney. The scheme provides a road junction between the bypass and the village street. This was planned to be provided by a simple, centre of the road turning lane on the bypass for traffic turning right into the village. At the consultation meeting, the residents said that this would be unsafe with fast-moving traffic on the bypass and asked for a roundabout. The engineer believed that they were correct in their criticism. However, he had to tell those at the meeting that a roundabout would slow down all the traffic and increase journey times for travellers. Because of this the economic benefits of the scheme would be reduced and it might, therefore, not qualify for funding. Such benefits are calculated using cost-benefit techniques, which add together the small time savings of the people using the road. These are then set against the cost of the scheme to provide an economic justification.
	The system is perverse. The journey time savings are very small and probably imperceptible to most road users. But there are a lot of users, and when the time savings are multiplied by lots of people you get a lot of money. The probability of a serious accident without the roundabout, or other form of controlled turning, is high; but, of course, it is unpredictable. The point that I wish to emphasise this evening is that the appraisal techniques being used need to be revised to give less weight to small time savings and to give greater priority and emphasis to safety. That will help to promote road safety.
	Paragraph 60 of New Directions in Speed Management says that time savings are an important economic element in assessing the case for investment in roads and public transport. As an economist I would agree that such techniques may have value in comparing two or more alternative schemes, but to impute a monetary value to someone saving a minute or so on a journey home, while not making adequate allowance for safety, has very little intellectual respectability.
	My other example concerns the new proposals allowing some small part of the income from fixed penalties generated by speed cameras to be spent on the costs of enforcement. This trial in six areas starts in April and is planned to last for two years. We are very grateful for this long overdue initiative. People are crying out for proper enforcement of speed limits, even if they do not always observe them when they are driving. Yet at the meeting held between the police and local authorities in the Thames Valley area to discuss the implementation of the scheme--and I quote from the unofficial notes taken at the meeting:
	"The DETR also worried about the Thames Valley Police plan to prosecute 250,000 drivers in the second year so this has been reduced to 180,000".
	I ask the Minister to repudiate that approach. As is well known, the cameras are already set with a threshold above the limit. Is it not right that those people who exceed the speed limit should have some action taken against them? We do not have a quota for prosecuting drunk drivers, so I do not understand why there should be one for those who speed.
	While extra money will go to the police, magistrates' courts and local authorities to deal with the increased workload arising from the trial scheme, can the Minister say whether any extra funding will be allowed to the Crown Prosecution Service? This will be necessary to make the scheme successful; otherwise, the most serious cases--those which have to be taken to court--will not be pursued.
	In conclusion, I want to suggest a development to the trial scheme for hypothecating some of the money raised by penalty notices for speeding, which may help to swing public opinion even more firmly behind the trial. Local authorities suggested that, as well as covering the additional costs of enforcement, a part of the hypothecated fund could be used to carry out physical improvements that would enhance safety and for which highway authorities will never have sufficient funds however generous the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made that point. We need better signing, road marking, application of skid resistant surfaces and minor engineering work at accident blackspots. However, as I understand it, that proposal was rejected.
	When the trial scheme relating to speed cameras is reviewed--I suggest it should be done at the end of year one, without waiting for two years--I hope that consideration will be given to diverting resources into positive accident prevention.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, when the road safety strategy was announced some headlines suggested that the Government had chickened out and that a blanket reduction to 20 miles per hour should have been imposed on all 30 miles per hour-limited roads. However, this is not so. Britain has reached a stage in its road safety development where we now know how to work with society and not fight it. We no longer tolerate the drink driver and the police are now backed in seeking the hard core who still imbibe and drive.
	The AA Foundation for Road Safety Research has shown that speed limits are not just poorly obeyed; their rationale is not understood. Some 50 per cent of drivers do not know the national speed limit for a single carriageway road and are puzzled about the archaic links between speed limits and street lighting. There is to be a new template offering guidelines for how and when limits are to be used. The guidelines are important not just to help lower speeds. The AA wants drivers to understand that limits on speed are there to help reduce death and injury. Where limits are at odds with the character of the road, the character must be changed or else drivers must be told the reason for the limit being set. Similar to the practice in some countries, the speed limits could be altered dependent upon the time of day. This has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham in respect of schools.
	In reality it is not just lower speed limits we need; it is lower speeds where safety so dictates--a system where the prosecuted driver is seen as a fool and not as being unlucky. The Prime Minister has explained that the aim is to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving. And who would disagree with that?
	The new road safety strategy is about more than just speed. It includes changes to the driving test, crash test legislation, penalties--I hope that it will be recognised that the fear of losing a driving licence through accumulating points is much greater than the fear of a fine being imposed--extension of health and safety into occupational driving, and much more.
	If time permitted, I would expand on driver training and the relationship between the driving records of parents and those of their children as researched by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the United States. The enthusiasm is there to ensure the success of the strategy. But are the resources?
	I now turn to enforcement. Some noble Lords may recall my association with traffic officers and the fact that I go on patrol regularly. Resources dictate the number of traffic units on the road at any time of the day and this will vary from force to force. It is a matter of operational priority as to how the available funds are spent. However, divisional traffic units are being reduced on a regular basis not only because of the increasing cost of purchasing and maintaining the various types of vehicles but also because chief officers sometimes want to be seen as being politically correct.
	Your Lordships may be aware that a few constabularies have about 10 per cent of their total strength engaged in traffic duties, with the average being about 5 per cent. However, are your Lordships aware that the Metropolitan Police have only 3.03 per cent of their strength as traffic officers? For reasons which are unclear to me, the Met is reducing its traffic division so that these highly trained and specialist officers can go on foot patrol and be more visible to the general populace. But how many people will see a foot patrol? And how many people will see a traffic vehicle in full livery? The reality is that many more people will see the car which can also reach an incident much more quickly than a foot patrol.
	In addition, the commercial vehicle unit in the Met which, as its name implies, concentrates on all matters involving commercial vehicles, is being disbanded. These specialised officers will go to division and, in time, their skills will be completely lost. How does this tally with better enforcement? If other constabularies are also reducing their traffic divisions--as, indeed, they are--I fail to see how enforcement can be improved. Enforcement on the roads will become similar to the position in the fire service--that of responding to demand and not patrolling our roads. So where does that leave road safety? Without sufficient traffic officers and suitable vehicles, enforcement will never be improved. It can be improved only if the saving of lives on our roads is taken more seriously, the appropriate resources are made available to all forces and chief officers are reminded of the high cost of each life lost on the road.
	In the Australian state of Victoria motorists are used to zero tolerance. There was initial opposition to this apparently heavy-handed method of road policing but it has been widely acclaimed for its success and now has the general approval of motorists. Despite the high cost of achieving a dramatic reduction in lives lost and people seriously injured, the overall financial savings have been substantial. Until such time as a similar system is supported in this country it will be difficult to achieve our proposed figures. Lancashire constabulary has been awaiting Treasury approval for such a scheme for some time now. I believe that it seeks something between £6 and £7 million with an anticipated saving of at least £40 million. I hope that approval will not be withheld for too long and that not too many lives will have been lost before the money is made available.
	In conclusion, I return to occupational drivers, who have already been mentioned. Years ago a company used to castigate its drivers who committed driving offences by transferring them from the company BMW to the company Lada. That tended to concentrate their minds!

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for initiating the debate. Brief as it is, I hope that it will elicit some interesting responses from the Minister to the points that have been raised. After all, that is the point of Unstarred Questions.
	I give a general welcome to the strategy despite some of the doubts about detail which have been expressed. I am a little worried by the report itself which has a circular construction, as it were. That is almost bound to result from having a large number of solutions or actions which are repeated. I suggest that the Government should occasionally tackle these matters the other way round. At the end of a report of this kind they should list the actions and then all the problems which those actions will solve. Had that been done, we would be able to understand the report much more easily.
	Before I go any further, I wish to say how much I support what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has just said about enforcement. My understanding is that road traffic control and enforcement is not one of the core activities of the police. It seems to me that a major benefit would be obtained if the police had the resources to devote to the enforcement part of the strategy.
	The slickly entitled report, The Numerical Context of Setting National Casualty Reduction Targets--which, of course, I have read from cover to cover--clearly indicates that in the past 10 years three factors have been the most important in terms of our success in achieving reductions in injuries. Those factors are: safer cars, measures to reduce drink driving, and road safety engineering.
	Looking ahead, the drink-driving campaign effect may no longer continuously reduce the number of accidents. I hope the Minister will comment on whether it is fair to say that the anti-drink-driving strategy has been replaced by a strategy to educate parents, children, young people, drivers, driving instructors and road users in general in an appreciation of the way in which dangerous behaviour, and especially speeding, can impact on one's own and other people's safety; in other words, another "hearts and minds" campaign. If that is the case, I should be glad to hear it, as there are far too many people who speed and far too many people who speed without any sense that they are doing anything wrong. Speeding does not seem to carry with it a connotation of guilt.
	I also wish to welcome and, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, stress the report's emphasis on those who are particularly vulnerable, for example, children who walk and cycle, younger car passengers--that is an interesting statistic among those with which we have been presented--and all those, whether children or not, who cycle and walk. A comprehensive approach needs to be adopted here. There needs to be training--as I have mentioned--the adoption of local transport plans; area-wide and route-length traffic calming; better speed controls on rural roads and the new system of 30 miles per hour limits in villages--as someone who in the past has lived in a rural area, I very much welcome that measure--together with the new system of road classification. Attention should also be paid to the needs of those living alongside through-roads in urban and residential areas, who are very often some of the most deprived people in our society.
	As to the issue of imposing new speed controls, I have another question for the Minister in regard to signing. Some of the signing of our roads at present is so confused as to be positively a detriment to the understanding of even the most attentive motorist. Not very long ago, I went along a road somewhere in western Gloucestershire where there were a series of six or seven signs, each only a few tens of feet away, some of them blocking one's view of the others as one approached. New guidance from the Government on how signing should be arranged so that it is not over-emphatic but clear would be most valuable. Consistent signing across the country is extremely important. Many of us travel in more than one county and more than one metropolitan area and, moving from one area to another, I notice that even road signing is not consistent, and certainly traffic signing is very inconsistent.
	I welcome the Government's emphasis on the use of good practice--for example, traffic clubs for parents with small children are an excellent idea, as is the Gloucester safe city approach to safer roads and traffic calming. As I said, I welcome the area-wide and route-length traffic calming approach, but I would counsel the Government against thinking that it is particularly easy to achieve. It is amazing how, in any given area, drivers want to obtain their own rat runs while preventing anyone from rat running through their own streets. I remember that the consultation process on this kind of area-wide traffic calming--I have the bruises on my body to this day--can take literally years to achieve. Surrey was one of the first counties to attempt to do it.
	I welcome also the concern about inappropriate speed on various categories of road and the partial hypothecation of fines for camera surveillance, to which my noble friend referred. However, I do not want to steal the thunder of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I have a feeling that I know one of the points he will be making. In general, I have found about 15 areas where legislative proposals will be required. Can the Minister tell us whether at any stage he, his noble friend and his right honourable friend have considered whether the upcoming Transport Bill might be a good vehicle for legislation of this kind, even if it is a matter only of making provision for order-making powers? In some cases that may be enough. It is an important Bill; it has a number of diverse sections and it seems to me that some of the legislative burden the report indicates may be lightened by dealing with it in this way.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for introducing his Unstarred Question in his lucid way this evening. It has been suggested that we on these Benches are not interested in road safety. I wish I had half an hour available to speak today because nothing could be further from the truth. As acknowledged in the Government's paper, the previous administration made remarkable progress in reducing casualties despite massive increases in road traffic and car ownership.
	In the UK we have a better record than most of our continental partners, but there is one area where we know that we are weak--that is, the casualty rate for children, which is disproportionately high. Worse still, the most disadvantaged sections of our society are disproportionately affected. There is nothing much more tragic than a child or youngster killed or seriously injured by a motor vehicle. The paper quite properly devotes its first substantive chapter to addressing the problem. However, it has taken the Government nearly three years to say what is their strategy for dealing with it.
	My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux raised the vital point about the need to install a deeply ingrained sense of responsibility at an early age, and of course schools have a major part to play. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised important points in regard to the numbers of traffic police available, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, also referred to the core responsibilities of the police.
	Chapter Three of the paper--Safer drivers--Training and Testing--is interesting to me as I am a qualified army heavy goods vehicle driving instructor. Accidents are caused by a lack of skill or poor attitude on the part of one or more drivers. It is interesting to note that organisations involved in fleet driver training programmes say that they are able to reduce the claims experience of a fleet by about 20 per cent with an average of no more than one day's training per driver, perhaps less. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we are not doing enough driver training post-test. But there is only so much that the Government can do. I am not confident that the insurance market is working as well as it could. Surely the insurance industry has a role to play in insisting on proper driver training in order to reduce claims experience in high risk fleets.
	Chapter Four covers drink, drugs and drowsiness. Again I agree with much of the paper. I have some anxiety about evidential roadside breath testing. I should need to be convinced that there are no changes that could be made to procedures in order to be able to best utilise police resources. One of my worries is that a serious RTA can be a confusing and distressing place, even for experienced police officers. What needs to be determined at the scene is who was actually driving what and whether any of the drivers might be under the influence. I should be much happier if evidence of blood alcohol or drugs levels was established at the police station and that there was no doubt about the identity of who supplied the sample.
	However, I will keep an open mind. It might be possible to insert the necessary checks and balances. It might also be worth looking again at where the police can carry out an initial breath test, as suggested at paragraph 4.16. The chapter also discusses the problem of drugs. We must make sure that the powers and hardware available to the police meet the requirements.
	Speed is an emotive subject, but speed kills. During a recent Unstarred Question I explained that speeding was a problem of bad driving, unskilled driving, but I also rejected some of the more draconian penalties suggested. The paper recognised that some speed limits may be unrealistic and that that could lead to negative public acceptance. However, there may also be good reasons for a speed limit--normally a high accident rate of which the ordinary motorist would be unaware. Perhaps we could have some indices displayed to indicate the accident rate relative to the low rate of a good motorway. If a motorist knows that a road is dangerous, he will be much more willing to adhere to the legal speed limit. Conversely, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, drew attention to the difficulties local authorities have in setting speed limits.
	The paper says quite a lot about penalties, and many road safety organisations advocate much stiffer penalties. There are two difficulties here. First, whatever is the maximum penalty, the court can only take into consideration exactly what the driver has done wrong--and we all know that a moment's inattention can have the most tragic consequences. Secondly, let us take, for example, the offence of driving without a licence. The Government's response to the Select Committee report indicated that for the lowest socio-economic group this offence may attract a fine of only £100, not a great deterrent if paid in instalments over a year.
	We shall shortly be debating the Government's flagship Transport Bill, which will make a substantial doorstop but which makes no provision for road safety. We shall be tabling many road safety amendments and this paper will be a useful guide. I will be tabling amendments to provide for the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles along the lines of the Bill I introduced during the last Session. I hope the Minister will be able to accept these amendments, as well as other helpful ones that I shall be tabling--with some thunder, I might add, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
	We do not have much time this evening, but I suggest that the Minister should allow some considerable time for road safety amendments when he plans the progress of his Transport Bill.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham for initiating the debate. It is timely in that it follows the Government's policy statement, to which many speakers referred--mostly in glowing terms, although with a few reservations and some quite severe ones on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There are many aspects of the policy that people will welcome. There may be one or two that some noble Lords would wish to go further.
	I pay tribute also to my noble friend, the representative on earth of RoSPA, and indeed to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. I very much regretted that some tedious business in this House to do with mailshots and the London election kept me from attending RoSPA's conference last week. I should have liked to meet many of the activists there.
	The new roads strategy, as my noble friend Lord Davies said, was launched by the Prime Minister. It is important to recognise the importance that that places on it in terms of our overall transport policy. It is a comprehensive 10-year strategy. It will require some challenging policies to be followed through by the Government and by others. The targets we have set are: a 40 per cent overall reduction in serious accidents and deaths; a halving of the number of child accidents; and a 10 per cent reduction in the rate of slight injuries. All will be tough to achieve, because some of the easy gains have already been made--not that they were all that easy. I pay tribute to the previous administration, and in particular to Peter Bottomley, who launched the previous version of that strategy, under which many achievements were made. As a result, in many respects our road safety record is good compared with that of other countries, but it is appalling when one thinks that 3,500 people still die every year on our roads. That applies particularly to the figures for children, where, as has been said, we do not have such a good record internationally.
	A radical attack is therefore needed on the remaining problems in the area of road safety. That involves not only the Government but local authorities, the police, other enforcement agencies, and the road safety organisations such as RoSPA. Above all, it involves those who use the roads, and drivers in particular. I hope that the strategy can attract the support of all those groups.
	My noble friend Lord Davies referred specifically to the role of local authorities and asked whether they would have sufficient resources and powers. I should like to place it on record that there will be adequate resources. We have already substantially increased resources within local transport plans. I believe that that will be followed through in subsequent spending rounds. The gearing towards safety issues will be written into the heavy guidance that we give in our local transport plans. More powers will also be given, for example, in relation to speed limits.
	The issue of child safety probably symbolises the approach of our strategy as a whole. It brings together a large number of different policy strands. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that there is some repetition. There is indeed some overlap between the various elements, and they reinforce each other. That is part of the importance and comprehensive nature of the strategy. We clearly want to change the environment in which children walk and cycle. That means better enforcement, lower speed limits, and traffic-calming zones in areas where children go to school, play and live. It means that local authorities must carry out child safety audits. It means more and better-designed pedestrian areas and better-designed roads. It means action on education, both for parents and children. It means attention in particular to safer routes to schools whether children travel by bus or bicycle, or on foot. Indeed, it means better car design, building on the improvements that we have seen, and in particular the use of seatbelts. In order to reduce the number of child victims, we need to intensify action on all of those fronts.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the change of mindset that we have achieved to some extent in relation to drink-driving and said that we need to apply that to speeding and other irresponsible forms of driving. I totally agree--not that we have entirely cracked the drink-drive problem. A number of recalcitrant drivers on our roads still habitually do not observe the drink-drive limit. We plan a robust package of measures to reduce further the dangers of drink-driving. That includes the Home Office review of penalties, and changes in relation to police procedures.
	I hope that I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the use of evidential roadside testing will not only improve the efficiency, but also the accuracy, rather than the other way round, of the drink-drive roadside testing procedure. I also reassure the noble Earl that we want to put the drug-driving regime on a similar basis to our reinforced and enhanced drink-driving regime. That is indeed a growing problem.
	Probably the next change of mindset that we need to bring about relates to speed. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, majored on that, as did my noble friend Lord Davies to a considerable extent. Speed has to be seen in a wider context. Our review of speed policy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred, looks at all other aspects. It looks at economic and environmental, as well as safety, aspects. Not all aspects move in the same direction. It must be recognised that some balance has to be achieved. In relation to cost-benefit analysis, I say to the noble Lord that it is always invidious to put a price on injury and death. However, the new approach that we adopted in the Roads Review last year places a much higher premium on safety than used to be the case under the old cost-benefit approach. I hope that to a large extent that meets his point.
	It is right that we should try to ensure that speeding is seen as irresponsible in most circumstances, in the same way as drink-driving is seen to be irresponsible. My noble friend Lord Davies referred to the differential impact if a pedestrian is hit at different speeds, and a child pedestrian in particular. Those figures are dramatic and they are not well known among the general driving public.
	My noble friend Lord Simon referred to the fact that the aim is to reduce actual speeds rather than reducing speed limits for the sake of it. That involves education. It involves enforcement and road engineering. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, it also involves signing. We are engaged in looking at both urban and rural signing to see how we can make it more effective.
	In this context, we are placing a great deal of responsibility on local authorities. Our whole approach to the new template of speed limits on our roads system requires local authorities to look particularly at those areas where serious road safety problems have been identified. They will be required to look particularly at urban residential areas. The noble Baroness is right: there are severe problems in densely populated areas where some of the most disadvantaged populations and populations of children live. Local authorities will need to look at those areas with a view to reducing speed limits and to provide home zones and other traffic calming measures in our villages, where the norm should be no more than a maximum speed of 30 mph; on rural lanes in appropriate circumstances the current default limit of 60 mph should be reduced.
	Those changes, which will be introduced via the local transport plans and other measures that local authorities will apply, will help to change behaviour on the worst of our routes, those that are most subject to safety problems. It will also require enforcement--both self-enforcement in the sense of road engineering and signing, and police enforcement. We need to take tough new steps to ensure that speed limits are enforced and that we discourage dangerous driving generally. That is what the tougher penalties element of the package is concerned with. In particular, we shall be looking at a new offence of gross speeding: speeding well in excess of the speed limit.
	Part of the enforcement involves the technology of cameras. We are introducing a new funding regime, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. For the first time that involves hypothecation--back to the costs of the police, the local authorities, the courts and the CPS. That can also be used to deal with safety problems. It is not a revenue-raising operation. It is related specifically to safety problems and to installing cameras in areas where safety can be improved.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, focused on the number of people who would be caught on such cameras. That is not exactly the point. The point of safety cameras is deterrence and achieving a lower actual speed limit, and therefore achieving safer roads. Clearly, a large number of penalties will be involved, and there will be an enforcement aspect. The measure of the success of the new policy will be whether it deters people from driving at excessive speeds.
	My noble friend Lord Simon and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the role of the police in this matter, and in particular that of the traffic police. It is true that the number of officers specifically designated as traffic police has reduced over the past decade or more. This is primarily a matter of operational priorities for chief constables. Against that, one must look at the success of automated enforcement via safety cameras and other measures. The fact is that at the moment 2.2 million people are brought before the courts for Road Traffic Act offences. That is a significant increase compared with the trend in accidents in spite of the growth in traffic volume. It means that the police are becoming more effective in the detection and prosecution of road traffic offenders.
	It is also true that the role of road safety in the priorities of police forces is being underlined by the Government and the Home Office in reports of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, in letters of advice from the Home Secretary to chief constables, and in the more general advice that goes to chief constables.
	My noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Simon referred specifically to work-related safety issues. That is being addressed in this policy. We are bringing the Health and Safety Executive into this area almost for the first time. I am happy to report that the inter-agency group will be chaired by Mr Richard Dykes of the Post Office. I am sure that that will have a dynamic impact on the standards of work-related driving.
	Both Front-Bench speakers made cross-references to the proposals in the policy and the Transport Bill. They are both right. Many of these propositions will require both primary and secondary legislation which will impinge on parliamentary time. The Transport Bill has already been introduced in another place and is a pretty hefty piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that appropriate amendments will be moved both there and in this House and we shall have to consider whether they can be incorporated into the Bill.
	The bulk of the policy will require separate legislation, and the Government are committed to bringing that forward as rapidly as the parliamentary timetable allows. In particular, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will be aware that last year I supported his efforts in relation to impounding lorries to ensure that there are safer HGVs on our roads. I hope that in some guise that reappears on the statute book before this Parliament comes to an end. I say no more than that at this point. Should the noble Earl table appropriate amendments in this or other fields, we shall consider them with the usual consensual approach to road safety issues. I very much appreciate the tone of all the speeches made by noble Lords this evening. We have a common interest in improving road safety. We must build on what has already been achieved and ensure that we do so in a way that achieves the very challenging targets that have been set.
	The only other matter to which I refer in this context is that alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. When I referred earlier to education, I was concerned primarily with younger school children. The noble Lord referred specifically to a pre-motoring period in which school children might become interested not so much as pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore possible victims of the motorised transport system, but as potential drivers. I believe that this is an area that can fruitfully be explored further and that it is one in which the various partners to which I have referred can become much more engaged. The noble Lord and I met not long ago and discussed this matter informally. I should like to take those discussions further with both the noble Lord and other interested groups in this House and elsewhere.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for raising this matter. I much appreciate the time that he and his colleagues spent discussing the matter at a dinner the other night. I believe that that discussion was fruitful and that, with a bit of push and shove, we shall get somewhere.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that it does not require much of a push and shove. However, pushes and shoves from the noble Lord are always welcome. With that, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for initiating the debate.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 4, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) The criteria specified pursuant to subsection (3) above shall amongst other things take account of local circumstances.").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 returns to the issue which the House debated before the adjournment in the context of an earlier amendment concerned with the powers of the learning and skills council in relation to funding issues. This amendment is related specifically to the requirement for colleges and other institutions to set fees and other charges according to specified criteria.
	In his reply at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bach, stressed the need for the learning and skills council to have flexibility and to exercise flexible judgments (as he put it) about the financial agreements that it needed to reach with providers. He rightly pointed out that the Further Education Funding Council dealt only with a relatively homogenous group of providers, namely the further education colleges, and that the learning and skills council would have a highly diverse group with which to deal. For this reason, the need for flexibility was all the greater. We do not deny that. However, it is precisely for that reason that we on these Benches tabled the amendment.
	It has been put to us from a number of sources that, flexibility or no, the powers embodied in Clause 6(3) are considerable and give the LSC power to impose a fee structure on any provider, be it a college or other provider. Yet fees which might be acceptable in the south-east of England, where unemployment has fallen and incomes are high, would be wholly unsuitable in, say, Cornwall or Sunderland. For that reason we ask that the criteria which are specified in these cases should include local circumstances. It is vital that there is local flexibility. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, indicated in Committee that she would return to this issue and expressed concern that a national fee scheme could not work. National arrangements are already in place and operated by the FEFC in relation to fees for further education provision. For example, a national fee exemption policy applies to those who are unemployed and in receipt of benefits or to 16 to 19 year-olds who are undertaking full-time education. This amendment would obstruct those arrangements. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that fee exemption arrangements for the disadvantaged and vulnerable should not be a matter for local discretion but rather national policy.
	There is a range of areas in which the LSC will need to make assumptions about fee levels by reference to national criteria and local discretion may not be appropriate. There will need to be arrangements for the fees of home and overseas students and it is likely that those will need to take account of the national fees and awards regulations already in place. More particularly--this will be the subject of further consultation that is to start in May--the LSC will need to establish benchmarks against which fee levels can be established for the many thousands of programmes that it will fund. Against those benchmarks it must determine the level of public funding that it will provide where there is a case for a contribution from the student or employer.
	Let me try to illustrate the point by way of an example. The LSC may determine that the proper cost of a particular full-time course is £2,000. It would set that as the fee level. If one assumes that for a particular type of provision 25 per cent of that cost should be met by an employer, then it would be clear and transparent that the LSC would pay £1,500. Establishing national assumptions about rates of grant and about fee levels will enable everyone to know what the starting point is.
	Of course, nothing in Clause 6 would prevent the LSC from responding to local circumstances by providing an additional contribution if that were warranted. That is why local LSCs will have the flexibility to vary from national funding tariffs so that they can respond to local circumstances and needs. We think that it is essential that they have the flexibility to make proper allowance for the variation in costs associated with different groups of learners and skill types.
	As I have indicated, we shall be conducting a detailed consultation on these and other funding issues in May. There will certainly be a role for the local arms of the LSC in responding to local circumstances. But the present amendment would inhibit the establishment of policies which, quite properly, should be set at the national level. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. In some degree it conflicts with the evidence presented to us from a number of colleges. I need to talk again to them about their worries. We tabled the amendment because of worries expressed to us by those colleges.
	The Minister assures us that the local learning skills council will have flexibility in its provisions. From her response, there seems to be sufficient flexibility written into the procedures. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I may wish to return to the issue later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Funding of school sixth-forms]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 5, line 11, at end insert--
	("( ) In making a grant to a local education authority, the Council must take account of a maintained school's choice to provide minority subjects or to provide mainstream subjects to low numbers of students when the consent of governors and parents is established.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to the funding of sixth forms. Clause 7 states that the council may make a grant to a local education authority, and sets out the conditions. Clause 7(2) states:
	"A grant made under this section may be made on conditions in addition to the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above (including conditions of a kind which could be imposed under section 6)".
	Clause 6 sets out,
	"for the provider to charge fees by reference to specified criteria; ... for the provider to make awards by reference to specified criteria; ... for the provider to recover amounts from persons receiving education or training or from employers (or from both)".
	I do not know whether that provision refers only to a place of work. These conditions do not appear to have a great deal to do with sixth forms. Clause 7 refers to "section 6". Clause 6 states that the conditions may,
	"require the Council or a person designated by it to be allowed access".
	Clause 6(3) states:
	"The conditions may require a person providing post-16 education or training ... to make arrangements providing for all or any of the following".
	I could go on listing the conditions in Clause 6. However, I return to the theme of local flexibility, referred to earlier today. Where a positive decision has been made which parents and governors have accepted and supported to teach minority subjects or to teach subjects to small groups, that policy should be properly recognised.
	The amendment deletes Clause 7(2) and replaces it with the following:
	"In making a grant to a local education authority, the Council must take account of a maintained school's choice to provide minority subjects or to provide mainstream subjects to low numbers of students when the consent of governors and parents is established".
	I hope that the amendment speaks for itself. I am greatly concerned that the conditions set out in Clause 6 are in addition to the condition set out in Clause 7(1)(a). I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on Amendment No. 43 I remind the noble Baroness that under the new arrangements LEAs will still have the same direct interest in the planning of school sixth form provision as they do now. They will need to consider ways of providing a wide choice of options for pupils when doing so. Small classes are not the only or indeed the best way for schools to be able to offer minority subjects. Where a sixth form cannot offer sufficient curriculum breadth, or pupils are being taught in isolation, LEAs and schools will be able to explore other, more sensible, means of provision. This includes collaboration or co-operation arrangements between one or more schools with sixth forms or between schools and FE colleges. Such arrangements can help ensure that the widest possible choice of options is available and that school sixth forms remain dynamic and attractive to potential students and their parents. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that that is something we should encourage.
	The noble Baroness has expressed concerns about how the LSC would react to a decline in numbers in a sixth form, and has suggested that it might automatically seek to close such sixth forms. She has also said that the Bill could be a threat to small sixth forms in general. I want to take this opportunity to reassure her once again that there is no such threat. The LSC does not have the power to propose closure in relation to size, only in relation to quality. The Government are committed to maintaining a broad base of learning provision for 16 to 19 year-olds and within that good sixth forms, whatever their size, will continue to play a vital role. The Bill is in no way an attack on small sixth forms. But we have made a commitment to drive up standards, and that means that the Bill contains clear measures in relation to poor quality sixth forms, whether they are small or large. As I mentioned in previous debate, those sixth forms which are struggling to make the grade will be given the opportunity to turn themselves around. We do not, however, want to see sixth form pupils let down by weak provision, and high standards must be the aim.
	For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment the noble Baroness proposes. It would cut across the need for LEAs to make sensible judgments about their plans for local provision and it would discourage schools from selecting cost-effective means of offering a viable and attractive range of sixth form provision.
	Turning to Amendment No. 44, the LSC will have a wide remit to fund a diverse range of providers, and school sixth forms are at one end of that spectrum. For that reason, the powers to impose conditions of grant, as laid out in Clause 6, need to exist, or there would have to be specific reference to every type of provider within the Bill. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that this would be unwieldy. However, under subsection (2) of Clause 7 we recognise the special nature of the grant made to schools and, in doing so, recognise the need for some continuity between the conditions of grant for pre-16 and post-16 funding for schools.
	We are clear that LEAs will continue to make decisions, as now, as to the allocations to individual schools from their sixth form grants. These allocations will continue to be governed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. And we have said that individual schools may continue to vire money between their pre-16 and post-16 provision. Indeed, we have made clear that the overall system will work much as at present with the LSC providing funds to LEAs in the interests of coherence right across the post-16 learning spectrum. The conditions which the LSC might attach to its sixth-form grant to LEAs would not cut across any of that.
	By accepting the amendment and leaving subsection (2) out of Clause 7, we would be leaving the door wide open for LEAs to receive or spend their grant without reference to entirely reasonable guidance or rules of propriety. The LSC might want, for example, to require that LEAs supply evidence on pupil numbers and related data for their areas. The council would be put in a position to check such data. Another example might be a condition that the LEA in question supplies the LSC with copies of the published budget statements relevant to each school with a sixth form. Those are the kind of conditions which support the Secretary of State's funding guarantees to school sixth forms.
	I understand that the noble Baroness might be concerned about the council having undue control over LEAs, but I assure her that that will not be the case. The conditions which might be made under subsection (2) would be those which rightly attach to public funding in the interests of protecting its proper use.
	The noble Baroness might want to bear in mind the fact that we have no intention of imposing conditions on sixth forms that have not been fully considered. That is why we are consulting widely and are in discussion with key partners on a number of issues related to sixth-form funding. We have not made those issues plain on the face of the Bill because they are not matters for primary legislation. However, we shall issue appropriate guidance when the time comes and I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives a copy.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will support the need to ensure that public money is spent wisely and with proper accountability, including in school sixth forms, and that she will not feel the need to press her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I found the Minister's answer deeply worrying--even more worrying than at first. I thought that I was pretty neurotic about the provision, but there were many inconsistencies in the noble Baroness's answer. She said that the conditions would not cut across and that there was no intention of imposing conditions on sixth forms. She said that it might be necessary to provide information on pupil numbers and related data. My goodness, there is not a school in the land which does not provide such information! They state the number of pupils; their ages; their achievements in examination and at the key stages; attendance on any given day; the number in a class; the number of teachers available; and so forth. If the Minister is referring to information over and above that already provided specifically for sixth forms as well as for every other age group, it would be helpful to know tonight what that might be.
	I have looked again at Clause 6 and find it worrying. The first part relates to access and checks on the technical equipment and the people who will be providing the courses. Subsection (3) contains the list to which I referred earlier about charging fees; making awards by reference to specified criteria; recovering amounts from people receiving education or training or from employers; and amounts to be determined by reference to specified criteria. None of that subsection can be applied to a sixth form unless there is an hidden agenda to charge fees and recover amounts of money.
	Subsection (4) relates to disabled people. There are already requirements on local authorities to make provision for young people with disabilities. The statementing system, which we tried to have extended beyond the age of 16 outside schools, works extremely well in schools. Subsection (5) enables the council to require the payment in whole or part of sums paid by it if any of the conditions subject to which the sums were paid are not complied with. It then requires the payment of any interest in respect of any period in which the sum was due to the council. Subsection (6) gives a definition of "disabled persons".
	I find it extremely disturbing that the noble Baroness still defends the council's right to impose conditions and to relate some of them to Clause 6. Clause 7(1)(a) states:
	"on the condition that the grant to be applied as part of the authority's local schools budget for a financial year".
	However, I would accept that as read. Ministers in this House and in another place have constantly said that schools will continue to be funded at sixth-form level as they are at present. Therefore, Clause 7(1)(a) comes as no surprise and I am pleased to see it as some form of reassurance. If money were given to schools and not used for the purpose for which it was given, there would be considerable worries.
	But why have Clause 7 at all? There is not a school in the land which does not receive grant for the education of children; which is fully accountable through the inspectorate and an auditing system; and which is accountable to its governing body, its LEA, its parents and the Secretary of State. What on earth is Clause 7 about, other than giving the council the power to make the grant?
	I can understand that, but the Minister prayed in aid that Clause 6 should apply. She gave no reason other than the provision of information, all of which is currently provided. She did not say what in Clause 6 might be pertinent to conditions which may be imposed--that word is used in the Bill--on sixth forms by way of funding; in other words, funding given on the condition that certain things must be done. It is incredible to think that there is further information in addition to that which is already provided by school sixth forms. Can the noble Baroness say what part of Clause 6 would be pertinent to sixth forms in future arrangements?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by what the noble Baroness said. Her amendment relates to Clause 7, but we are going into great detail about Clause 6. Clause 6 relates to funds going to LEAs not to schools, so it is not pertinent to sixth forms. It is about LEAs.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me why Clause 7(2) states:
	"A grant made under this section may be made on conditions in addition to the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(a) (including conditions of a kind which could be imposed under section 6)"?
	I have read Clause 6, which appears on the previous page. It is not my doing; the Government referred to "section 6" in Clause 7.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, unlike the provision to which Clause 6 refers, the council needs a specific power to give funds to the LEA, because the LEA is not itself a provider. I believed that I had explained that we want to have consistency of funding across the whole of 16 to 19 education, and that is what this is all about. However, perhaps I can give the reassurance that I believe the noble Baroness wants. We shall not require schools to provide a great deal of additional information over and above what they already provide. However, it is important that the LSC can obtain from LEAs the information that it needs. It needs those powers in order to ensure that funds are properly spent.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was no answer. Again, the noble Baroness criticised me harshly for invoking Clause 6. Clause 6 is itself invoked in the paragraph to which I referred and which I wish to delete and replace with another paragraph. The noble Baroness gave not one single reference in Clause 6 as to what would be pertinent to the funding of sixth forms. The information which sixth forms are being asked to provide is all publicly available. I myself could probably provide it for most sixth forms in the land because, as I said, all the information, such as numbers of teachers and pupils, how many pupils there are in a class, how many groups there are and what subjects are being taught, is all publicly available. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Links between education and training and employment]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Page 5, line 19, after ("of") insert ("appropriate").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 46. These two amendments relate to Clause 8 and apply to work experience. However, they pick up earlier discussions that we have had this evening about what is and is not appropriate and about the need for discretion in relation to age limitations. I do not wish to go over those points again.
	However, in relation to the word "appropriate", I wish to stress once again the importance of proper guidance in these matters. Work experience is often seminal in the choice of careers; to put it bluntly, "any old work experience" will not do. It can be vital in helping young people to decide upon careers, whether for or against a particular career. I have known several young ladies who were besotted with the idea of studying veterinary science until they had work experience with a vet. Then they decided against it. Equally, having had a two-week session of work experience in the subject, my own daughter decided to study electronic engineering and subsequently went on to gain a first-class degree. Therefore, when appropriate, work experience can be extraordinarily valuable. However, inappropriate work experience can leave nothing but negative feelings which, in a sense, can be disastrous.
	I believe that it is important to have the appropriate back-up facilities for work experience arrangements. Again, the Careers Service currently plays an important part in ensuring that appropriate work experience is available and in advising young people on the options available. Underlying this amendment are the same concerns that I expressed earlier regarding the degree to which the Careers Service will in future be available only to those who present problems rather than to mainstream young people with respectable GCSE results. By putting the word "appropriate" on the face of the Bill, we ensure that all the aspirations of the Minister will be met.
	I shall speak briefly about Amendment No. 46. In Committee the Minister stressed that this clause related only to young people in school and of school age through such organisations as educational business partnerships. She stressed the degree to which further education establishments are already linked to the worlds of work and learning and believed that the work experience arrangements mentioned in Clause 8 were therefore unnecessary and did not apply. Nevertheless, there are occasions when such arrangements may be valuable. In Committee we discussed the needs of those with learning and other disabilities and how they might be catered for separately under Clause 13. I stress again the needs of those who slip out of mainstream education when younger and return to it in their early twenties. This clause simply allows for a degree of flexibility and discretion in its interpretation. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I said in Committee, I am afraid that I do not believe that Amendment No. 45 is necessary. It would be unreasonable for LSCs to secure inappropriate work experience opportunities for young people. That much is implicit within the provision as it stands. Statutory bodies must act reasonably. It really is as simple as that.
	I move on to Amendment No. 46. I see no reason for Clause 8 to provide for those over the age of 19. Our intention in this clause as drafted is to maintain and develop existing initiatives designed to support young people's learning, to give them an insight into the world of work and to help them to inform their career choices. It is explicitly for young people of school age.
	Such arrangements are already available for those over 19 in FE and for those undertaking training, where contact with employers and business is automatically an integral part of the course. Employers, schools and organisations like Education Business Partnerships have worked closely over a number of years to ensure that a range of such activities is available locally to students. We are extremely keen to continue supporting young people through education business link activities. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
	Connexions, which will include careers advice, will be available in any event--and we shall return to that tomorrow--for all 13 to 19 year-olds and it will offer advice including, if appropriate, advice relevant to work experience.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I cannot say that I am surprised by it. As she says, we shall return tomorrow to the issues of appropriateness and the Connexions service and we shall have some lengthy discussion on that at that point. It seems more appropriate for us to discuss it then. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 47:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 11
	(" . The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of an institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on--
	(a) the quality of education or training provided by the institution, or
	(b) the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 98. Those amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 and 102 to 104. I shall speak briefly to my amendments because I know that the Minister has tabled similar amendments. I have looked carefully at the wording of those amendments and I am not entirely happy with the wording of them.
	It is important--and now the Government have realised that it is important--to have triggering mechanisms and good reason for acting against an institution where there is reason to believe that either something is going wrong in the management or provision of education in the institution or there is good reason to believe that it is likely to happen.
	My amendment refers to,
	"the quality of education or training provided by the institution, or ... the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution".
	Those seem to me to be the sort of reasons which should be established before there is any intervention. I am just a little bothered by the wording of Amendment No. 86, which links it with as yet unknown instructions which may be passed down from the Secretary of State. The amendment states,
	"if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Council ... has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or ... has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act".
	If one reads this Bill--but, of course, it applies to any Act--there are loose powers, powers which can be used in a way which is as yet unstated. One is concerned about what is behind all that.
	The important factors in an institution are the quality of the education and training which is being provided and the proper use of the public funds, which is the real concern behind the Government's intention. That is honourable. I support the intention that, where abuse or misuse of funds is taking place, or is thought likely to take place, action should be taken. But I am worried about the wording of Amendment No 86. I prefer to reserve any further comment until I have heard the noble Baroness introduce the Government's amendments.
	We support early intervention and the powers being used properly although, sadly, the powers which have been available to the FEFC in the past have not been fully used. That is to be regretted. It is extremely important that the institutions themselves know the conditions under which such action will be taken. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I wish to speak also to the government amendments to Clause 25.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has returned to the concerns which she and others expressed during our debates on Clause 11 in Committee that the power available to the LSC to appoint additional governors, where there were concerns about institutions, was open-ended and had no trigger mechanism.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would place restrictions on the use of that power. I made clear in our earlier debates on Clause 11 that the Government consider that there should not be any restrictions placed on the circumstances in which the LSC can make an early intervention, and our position on that has not changed.
	We are clear that the LSC should be able to intervene at an early stage where there are concerns. It should not be constrained by conditions which could lead to the worsening of a problem. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly announced last year, as part of the revised accountability framework for FE colleges, that the FEFCE and FEFCW should be able to intervene at individual colleges by nominating up to two governors. Clauses 11 and 39 provide for the LSC and the CETW respectively to have the same capability but will provide for them to have the power to appoint up to two additional members to any college governing body as they consider necessary.
	Noble Lords must bear in mind that there are already powers for the funding council to provide for additional members on governing bodies. We covered that matter in Committee. The present arrangements allow an unrestricted power to nominate additional members. The power to appoint simply ensures that there can be no delay or blockage before new members take up their new posts. I am a little puzzled as to why the noble Baroness is still concerned. We debated this clause thoroughly in Committee. Indeed, I was most grateful during that debate for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the pertinent example he gave from his own experience on the then Polytechnics and College Funding Council.
	Since that debate, my officials have met with the AoC. Its representatives said that they understand the reasons why the Government want to give that power to the LSC and why we do not want to constrain its use with unnecessary restrictions. They have made it clear that they no longer oppose in any way the clause as it stands. Professor Melville, at the FEFC, has indicated also to the department that he welcomes the power to nominate additional governors.
	Perhaps the noble Baroness is concerned that the power to nominate will threaten the autonomy of FE governing bodies. I do not believe that it will. We are allowing a maximum of only two additional members. The minimum number on any governing body is 12 and in many cases it is nearer the maximum of 20. An extra two members will not, therefore, have an effect on the autonomy of governing bodies. As I have explained, the power will allow the LSC and CETW to intervene; for example, where they consider there might be mismanagement or potential mismanagement by the governing body or where there are signs that the educational provision at the college is failing. The councils must be able to do so before the problem becomes so serious as to warrant intervention by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was fully aware of that provision and she was extremely helpful in conceding the desirability to intervene in such circumstances. Any constraints on that power would defeat that aim.
	However, there may also be occasions when a college wants to invite the LSC to appoint an additional governor to assist with a difficult situation or to provide specialist expertise. Restrictions on the use of the power would prevent the LSC or CETW from making that kind of appointment.
	I turn now to the government amendments. During our earlier debate on the clause I promised to bring forward amendments to ensure that the Secretary of State could intervene if he felt that the LSC was using its power to appoint members inappropriately. The amendments which I propose to Clause 25 will allow any college which considers that the LSC, in appointing additional governors, is not acting appropriately to take the matter up with the Secretary of State who, if he agrees, may intervene.
	Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 will allow the Secretary of State, and Amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104 the National Assembly, to intervene if the LSC or CETW fail to discharge a duty placed upon them by or for the purposes of any Act of Parliament.
	Intervention would also be possible in the event that the LSC or CETW act or propose to act unreasonably in the exercise of their functions. If, for example, a college was concerned that the LSC had decided to appoint additional governors under Clause 11 without reasonable cause, they would be able to complain to the Secretary of State. If he agreed that the appointment was inappropriate, he would then be able to intervene and issue directions accordingly. Of course, this power of intervention will be more wide-ranging than this and will apply generally to all the functions of the LSC and CETW.
	The amendments are clearly sensible in view of the wide-ranging powers of the new NDPBs. The Secretary of State has similar powers at present in respect of the FEFC and, indeed, over LEAs and governing bodies where they have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably in the exercise of their statutory powers. This approach follows current precedent provided for by the former government in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for, in a sense, provoking the Government to table amendments in this regard. They provide important clarification and will, I hope, address at least in part the concerns expressed in Committee by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness is concerned that there is no qualification on the use of the power. The amendments introduce qualifications. Given that we will be placing a restriction on the power to appoint governors so that it may not be used unreasonably, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reconsider and withdraw her amendment.
	Perhaps I may add that Section 496 of the Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State power to direct governing bodies, LEAs and head teachers if they fail to act in accordance with their statutory duties. We are simply replicating that approach in this power. The FEFC can be directed by the Secretary of State in similar circumstances, although the power of direction--Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the 1992 Act--is phrased a little differently but to entirely the same effect. I hope that that responds to the queries raised by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can explain the meaning of the words in Amendment No. 86 which states:
	"In such a case directions may contain such provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties".

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the point I have just made refers to Amendment No. 86. The approach is taken directly from Section 496 of the Education Act 1996. It simply means that the Secretary of State can intervene if the council fails to act on a duty, not on a power.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall read carefully the words of the noble Baroness. It is comforting that the Bill now provides both a triggering mechanism and conditions under which the powers would be used. I believe that will be welcomed in Wales as well as in England. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 [Research and information.]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 6, line 28, at end insert--
	("( ) The Secretary of State shall publish any request he makes under this section.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 48, grouped with Amendments Nos. 49 to 51, returns to the issue of performance information. When we discussed this before, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made reference to the fact that some provision was entirely privately funded and stated that therefore it would be difficult to require this sort of information. My amendment therefore states that only publicly-funded education and training should provide such information.
	As regards Amendment No. 48 it seems to me important that when asking for information, in the interests of open government and transparency, any request by the Secretary of State is made public so that the world at large, not least the institutions, can be privy to the information given in response to the request from the Secretary of State.
	Amendment No. 49 provides that the council must publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort obtaining any publicly-funded qualifications approved under Section 90. That seems to me to be straightforward. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
	Again, Amendment No. 50 states:
	"The Council must publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort working towards any publicly-funded qualification approved under section 90".
	That information,
	"working towards [and achieving] any publicly-funded qualification"
	gives some indication of what is going on in institutions.
	Finally, my Amendment No. 51 asks that,
	"The Council must publish annually information about the number and percentage of people in each age cohort achieving each level of publicly-funded qualification approved under section 90, making due allowance for individuals achieving more than one approved qualification".
	It is really an argument for making this public information available to all. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is not here. I believe that he was equally interested in information. I noticed that he was sufficiently cogent in pressing his case that he gained a concession from the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 48 was tabled at Committee stage. I made it clear at the time that while we are fully committed to the principle of open government, due regard must be paid to ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially important policy information. That remains the case. It may not always be appropriate for the Secretary of State to publish every request; for example, if the request related to future expenditure or other commercial-in-confidence information. That is why we cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
	Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 are similar to amendments discussed in Committee. I undertook to consider any amendments that the noble Baroness tabled in the light of that debate. She has tabled amendments which refer only to provision which is publicly funded. I assure her that these amendments have been considered with care, as promised. But I will disappoint her when I say that the Government remain of the view that the existing provision is sufficient.
	We agree with the noble Baroness's intention that achievements in post-16 learning should be monitored and evaluated, and we certainly intend that the LSC will be required to publish information at both local and national levels. But we do not require these provisions in primary legislation. Our guidance will allow us to ensure that the LSC publishes information to these and other ends. We suggest that that is a more appropriate means than the provisions in primary legislation that the amendments propose.
	The noble Baroness's amendments are very specific about the information required and relate to a diverse range of circumstances in which external qualifications approved under Clause 90 of the Bill will be funded not just by the LSC but LEAs and other specified public funding bodies. We do not believe that bringing together the information in such a way will tell us very much that is of value. Nor will it provide a suitable alternative to existing measures of achievement such as the secondary and 16-18 performance tables or the measures of progress against the national learning targets for adults and young people. It will certainly be more than the LSC will need for financial and management purposes. We believe that we would therefore risk adding to the reporting burden on employers and institutions in order to obtain information that would have limited value. By having these requirements in primary legislation, we would be forsaking any flexibility to meet information needs which may change over time.
	Moreover, the specification of the sort of information we will expect the LSC to publish is being developed now as part of the quality framework for the LSC and will be the subject of public consultation after Easter. It is therefore too early to say what these requirements should be.
	Although we might expect some of the information referred to in these amendments to be gathered, the specific statutory requirements proposed would anticipate the outcome of the consultation and might not be compatible with changing information needs. Together with our earlier assurance that we will indeed be requiring the LSC to publish information, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept the explanation of the Minister in relation to Amendment No. 48 and pass on to Amendments Nos. 49 to 51.
	In relation to those three amendments, I regard the knowledge of how many young people gained a qualification, how many were working towards a qualification and how many young people as a percentage were achieving levels of publicly-funded qualifications as being basic information, some of which is already in the public domain. I would be somewhat reassured if my understanding of what the Government said is correct. If it is not, perhaps the noble Lord will write to me.
	I understood him to say that the argument between us was more about means to ends than the required information itself, and that the information would be subsumed in the guidance that would be distributed; that that information would be part of other information which would also be elicited; and that no one piece of information would be regarded as otiose in terms of what the outcomes were from publicly-funded courses.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I give the noble Baroness that assurance.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
	Clause 13 [Persons with learning difficulties]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 6, line 32, leave out ("and 3") and insert (", 3 and 8").

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 99 and return to Amendment No. 54 when I have heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke very eloquently in Committee about the problems faced by disabled people in securing work experience. The issue may be as fundamental as having support in deciding which kind of work to try. He proposed extending the provisions of Clause 13 to include the LSC's powers in respect of work experience. I am happy, in Amendments 52 and 99, to meet his request and to make similar provisions for the Welsh Council. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will welcome the Government's response. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can be extremely brief. In Clause 14 the council is required, in subsection (1)(a), to produce a report,
	"As soon as is reasonably practicable [on] the progress made during the year in the provision of post-16 education and training for disabled persons; (b) the Council's plans for the future provision of post-16 education and training for disabled persons",
	and in subsection (2) to,
	"send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State".
	I believe that it is only right that a copy should be sent also to the local education authority.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Committee when she raised the issue of the importance of work experience for learners who fall under Clause 13; in other words, those with learning difficulties and disabilities. I am delighted that the Government considered those arguments and are now seeking to amend the Bill.
	This is one of those instances where a minor amendment could have a major long-term impact. The Government are dedicating substantial resources and applying innovation to encourage disabled people to work through the New Deal scheme, supported employment and so on. Work experience for disabled people who are in, or are about to leave, further education is a necessary corollary and I am delighted that this has been recognised.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I too welcome this amendment and echo the words of my noble friend.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in Amendment No. 54 the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, returned to a point that she made in Committee; that is, that the LSC's report on its provisions for disabled people should be copied to local authorities. I am afraid she will be disappointed that I have not changed my view since our last discussions. It is good practice and common sense for the LSC to follow the current arrangements of the FEFC and publish its report widely to many bodies, including local authorities. I would not want to pick out local authorities for particular treatment. But, more importantly, I do not believe that these arrangements should be a matter for legislation. I think that they are just common sense and a matter of normal practice now.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Addington: moved Amendment No. 53:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:TRANSPORT PROVISION FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
	(" .--(1) The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties to participate in all forms of post-16 education and training and such support must be made available for all who would find it either impossible or unreasonably difficult to access educational and training provision without it.
	(2) The Council must make and publish a plan for the delivery of appropriate transport services and support for people with learning difficulties.
	(3) The Council may pilot dedicated transport schemes, in partnership with statutory and voluntary organisations, for people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25.
	(4) In undertaking an assessment of the transport needs of people with learning difficulties and in establishing pilot schemes, the Council shall have regard to individual needs in relation to orientation and personal safety when utilising transport options, for example the prevention of bullying and abuse.
	(5) Local learning and skills councils must secure the provision of mobility training requested by people with learning difficulties participating in post-16 education and training.
	(6) For the purposes of this section transport includes--
	(a) the use of public transport;
	(b) the use of general transport provided by institutions, employers and training providers;
	(c) the use of transport provided by voluntary sector providers;
	(d) the use of private hire vehicles and other forms of private transport;
	(e) the use of specialist transport provided for disabled people.
	(7) For the purposes of this section recipients of financial resources shall include people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25 who have extra transport costs in accessing post-16 learning.
	(8) For the purposes of this section mobility training includes enabling disabled people to access vehicles safely, orientate themselves on vehicles, travel in safety and deal confidently with the street environment.").

Lord Addington: My Lords, I hope that I shall not take up too much time on this amendment, because it is merely a redrafting of the wording of an amendment we discussed at Committee stage.
	When we discuss transport provision for those with learning difficulties we are talking of a small group who actually need it--and such is defined in the amendment. It is for those who will benefit from the special support, particularly training.
	This is necessitated by the fact that if one cannot reach a college, one cannot participate in education. It is as simple as that. It is a very basic part in the requirement.
	This amendment is now drawn that little bit tighter so that only those who will really benefit from it are brought within the provision. We are not talking of vast numbers of people; at least, that is not the intention. If the wording is not perfect, I am prepared to give way on that. The intention here is to have a smaller group, so I hope that we shall not hear stories about too many people being brought in. If we cannot get people to these colleges, they cannot attend. They cannot do the course. It is as simple as that. Their education will not exist.
	I have been given various case studies. One case was of a girl who had learning disabilities who was inclined to give everyone a big hug when meeting for the first time. She became very excited and stammered very badly when she spoke to people. One can imagine this combination for a person without training who is having to deal with the bus service. The amendment would give to local authorities--for those people involved--the ability actually to deal with these problems through training. It is a very basic step we are taking. I hope that the Government will be able to say something very positive. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, when on 10th February, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, withdrew his previous wider-ranging amendment, he urged us to go away, rack our brains and to come back with something else that would solve the problem. These two amendments are an attempt to do that. I should like to support both the amendments. I am more enthusiastic about Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because it is wider. It would help all disabled learners who otherwise could not, or only with unreasonable difficulty could, access an educational and training position. It is tighter than the previous amendment, as he said. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.
	I have added my name to Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. He apologises for not being present. He has asked me to speak briefly to it. He said that he would not move the amendment when the time came. It is a more pragmatic attempt to obtain half a loaf that would catch all young disabled learners in real need of help and would exclude those not in such great need. It is only half a loaf because it does not cover adult, older lifelong learners. Certainly, I hope the Minister may look kindly on Amendment No. 67 if she cannot accept the wider-ranging Amendment No. 63, and that she will acknowledge that more would still have to be done.
	I know the Minister is very keen that disabled learners should be able to make the most of the educational opportunities on offer and is very aware that transport provision has long been a thorny problem and still does not work as well as it should. This Bill offers great opportunities to disabled learners. It has been strengthened today by the most welcome amendments, Amendments Nos. 55 and 100, which deal with the duty to promote equality of opportunity. One of the definitions of an opportunity is an occasion offering a possibility. It has to be within reach. I do not think that Tantalus would have described the bunch of grapes beyond his grasp as a gastronomic opportunity. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she can accept Amendment No. 53 or Amendment No. 67 or can at least offer some positive solution so that the educational opportunities in the Bill can be grasped by disabled learners and do not remain an unobtainable dream.

Lord Rix: My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading, learning to travel independently can make a tremendous difference to the life of a student with a learning disability. That applies even to those with a profound, multiple disability who may well require different forms of transport--private transport arrangements. They, too, need to be equipped with the skills to use transport. It is an interesting fact that 20 years ago the BBC and I dwelt on this point when we presented the programme "Let's Go" for people with a learning disability. Twenty years later, we still do not have it right, although I am happy to say that in her letter to me the Minister has given an assurance that the learning and skills council will use its powers to secure the future provision of mobility training. I hope that will be added to the necessity for life-long learning.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has sent a helpful letter on transport. It refers to the difficult dilemma facing local authorities to which the Minister referred at our previous meeting. The first paragraph of the letter refers to the trials of the education maintenance allowance and to the new pilots, which will involve the additional integrated issue of providing transport for disabled students. There is hardly enough in the education maintenance allowance budget anyway. If the new pilots are to subsume yet another task, I should like to know from the Minister whether there will be additional funds.
	In the top paragraph on the next page of the letter, the Minister says that she intends to provide learning partnerships with specific guidance on how they might tackle the provision of transport. Again, the issue will be money. It will not be will. The will almost everywhere, including among local authorities, is very much to do just that. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is fundamental. If a person is assessed, and if the provision is made but the person cannot get to where he wants to go, the provision is worthless. The issue will be one of finance; and not of discussing this with learning partnerships or of having joint reviews with a single budget--the education maintenance allowance budget--and tacking on to that the whole issue of providing transport for disabled people.
	I have no quarrel with the Minister. She has been helpful in setting out some of the problems; but some of the ways forward sound more aspirational than practical.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken for their support for the Government's response so far. There are points which I could make about the detail of the amendments, but instead I want to concentrate on the central issue: how best to provide transport for students with learning difficulties. The amendments suggest that responsibility should be transferred to the LSC. I believe that students' needs will be best served if the lead responsibility for post-16 student support remains with LEAs.
	There are three reasons for that. First, LEAs often do a good job in ensuring that transport is available for people with learning difficulties who need it.
	Secondly, LEAs are responsible for arranging transport for pupils under 16 and will remain so even if the amendment is accepted. We could then have something of a mess: buses being laid on for school pupils by one organisation and quite separate provision being made by another organisation for students attending a neighbouring sixth-form college.
	Thirdly, local authorities are responsible for the overall transport arrangements for their area and they take account of the interplay between the needs of students, shoppers, commuters and so forth. To take out any one of those components and give it to another party does not make a great deal of sense. If either of these amendments were to be accepted, it is likely that a number of services currently provided by LEAs would cease to be viable.
	However, although I believe that keeping transport with the LEAs is right, I am very much aware that we could improve considerably on the present situation. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I mentioned that from next September we will be augmenting our trials of education maintenance allowances with new pilots to assess the value of a specific allowance to cover transport costs. My officials have already met disability organisations to ensure that the needs of disabled students are fully considered in the design of the new pilots. If successful, I hope that EMAs and associated developments will become the basis of a national system for the support of learners. We will continue to keep in close contact with disability organisations about these and other relevant developments.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about additional funds. She suggested that EMAs are already oversubscribed and that more young people are applying for them than local authorities have been able to fund. Local authorities have not adequately been able to meet the demand. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that EMAs are new money. Additional funding of up to £40 week has been made available in these pilots. A great deal of resource is being put into this area.
	In addition to these developments, I believe that further action in respect of both learning partnerships and the learning and skills council would bring about an important improvement in the situation for those people with learning difficulties who require transport. Learning partnerships bring together all the main local players, including colleges and LEAs. I expect them to plan jointly to make the best use of their combined resources for transport and I intend to provide learning partnerships with specific guidance on how they might tackle the provision of transport. Again, my officials will work with disability organisations to prepare this guidance for issue as quickly as possible. I hope that by disseminating and encouraging good practice we shall be able to create rather better local solutions than those which exist at present.
	Noble Lords may already be aware that my officials have been working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on research into the provision of transport for school pupils with special educational needs. In view of the success of this work, I think that it is now right to commission a similar study of transport provision for post-16 students. In due course, I hope that it will supplement the advice that we shall be giving to learning partnerships.
	I recall from the debate in Committee that the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, were particularly concerned about the future provision of mobility training. In this respect, noble Lords will appreciate that we have taken care to ensure that the LSC will have sufficiently broad powers to make such provision, free from the uncertainty which has surrounded the FEFC's activities in this regard. As a result, the LSC will be able to use its broader powers to ensure that more people with learning difficulties are able to make use of currently available transport.
	The LSC will be able to achieve more than the FEFC. For example, as a matter of course local LSCs will consult learning partnerships in drawing up their local plans. Where local LSCs identify gaps in transport provision, they will have the ability to commit resources to transport initiatives. Moreover, noble Lords will appreciate that the Government have substantially increased the resources for access funds, which will be made available by the LSCs to providers. The existing Access Funds Working Group provides an advisory forum for guidance on funding allocations, as well as covering wider strategic discussions about the use and purpose of these funds. The group is currently managed and chaired by the FEFC, but in the future this responsibility will shift to the LSC. I should very much welcome the participation of a representative of disability groups on the LSC's Access Funds Working Group, when it is established.
	In conclusion, although I cannot accept these amendments, I strongly support the need to make more effective transport provision for people with learning difficulties. I hope that I have explained why I believe it would be a mistake to undermine the position of LEAs and that noble Lords will welcome the measures that I have outlined. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all those who have supported these amendments. However, I feel a little uneasy about the Minister's answer because, basically, its says, "Best practice. We will talk more and there will be guidance". I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, cast a very long shadow over that earlier today when he talked about duties and guidance and about what happens when and where. I have the same rather chill feeling running down my spine. I feel that some will do it well, while some will not; and some will interpret it, while others will not.
	We will end up with that eternal situation that seems to happen to everyone involved in the field--namely, of going back and battling it out with your local authority. In some cases, where there are articulate parents who know how to work through the various organisations, they will get the right deal. That is something that all those involved in the disability lobby are heartily sick of seeing.
	However, I thank the Minister for going as far as she could. Indeed, one should always congratulate someone on any advance, even if it is small. But it was not exactly storming through the barricades, though it might be a new entrenchment position from which to batter away. Having said that, I thank the Minister for going as far as she did go and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 [Disabled persons]:
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new Clause--
	:TITLE3:EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
	(" .--(1) In exercising its functions the Council must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity--
	(a) between persons of different racial groups,
	(b) between men and women, and
	(c) between persons who are disabled and persons who are not.
	(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year of the Council it must publish a report containing--
	(a) a statement of the arrangements made under subsection (1) and having effect in the year;
	(b) an assessment of how effective the arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.
	(3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which the Council has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).
	(4) The Council must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
	(5) "Racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.
	(6) Disabled persons are persons who are disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").
	[Amendment No. 56, as an amendment to Amendment No. 55, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 55 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Plans]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 7, line 31, leave out from second ("year") to end of line 33 and insert ("and which should reflect the education and training needs of each local learning and skills council area;").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58. The amendment seeks to delete from Clause 15(4)(a) the words,
	"in conformity with directions of the Secretary of State or with conditions imposed under section 27".
	Again, we return to the constant theme of everything emanating from the Secretary of State. Indeed, this is a very seriously top-down, bureaucratic set-up. It seems to me that this is yet another part of the Bill where it would make sense to change the position to provide a more local focus. Therefore, I believe that the provision should reflect the education and training needs of each local skills area if it is to be a meaningful plan; in other words, in relation to local areas, it should not conform with directions from some stratospheric central government office. That is an important consideration.
	Amendment No. 58 deals with where the information should go. It provides for the council to send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority. I am mindful of what the Minister said when responding to my Amendment No. 54. She agreed that the local education authority is important, but asked what would happen about all the others if we put it on the face of the Bill.
	The Government see fit constantly to refer to the Secretary of State on the face of the Bill. They also see fit to refer to the RDAs on the face of the Bill. However, given that local education authorities are losing so many powers to the LSCs--yet they will still organise the provision and be responsible sometimes for standards within the institutions offering the provision--they seem to be completely sidelined. Under the terms of the Local Government Bill, new obligations are being placed on local authorities with regard to the economic well-being of their areas. It seems to me quite incredible that in the Bill we are discussing tonight local authorities are not properly recognised. I suspect that yet again the Government will find some reason not to allow local authorities to receive a copy of the plan that I am discussing. I believe that as regards,
	"the Council's financial proposals for the year, and in particular proposals as to how it plans to keep to its budget for the year",
	in the words of my Amendment No. 58,
	"The Council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority".
	I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Amendment No. 57 seeks to remove the requirement for the national LSC's annual plan to set out how it will achieve objectives set by the Secretary of State.
	The LSC will spend £6 billion of public money and it is only right that in formulating its annual operational plan it should set out how it plans to achieve the Secretary of State's objectives for this expenditure. The plans of local LSCs as provided for in Clause 22 will set out how they propose to discharge their responsibilities in the light of the education and training needs for their area. There is no need to replicate these plans in the national plan.
	As regards Amendment No. 58, I am only too happy to reiterate what I said in Committee: the LSC will publish its annual operational plan for anyone who wants to read it by making it available on the Internet. It is an unnecessary provision to specify that hard copies have to be sent to each and every local authority in England. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press the amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that this is very much a locally focused arrangement providing locally effective services to meet the needs of local areas because, as I said, everything emanates from the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness has just said that if the Government are providing this large sum of money, everyone must do what the Secretary of State dictates. I understood that there was to be a considerable amount of local autonomy in this matter. However, I was clearly wrong in that and my suspicions were clearly right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
	Clause 18 [Supplementary functions]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Leave out Clause 18.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sent a helpful letter and a fairly detailed explanatory note on Clause 18, which I welcome. However, as so often happens, such detail begs even more questions. The noble Lord stated that the national learning and skills council, and in particular the local learning and skills councils,
	"are to play a more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils".
	That is interesting. Will that role be more important than those of the TECs, of local education authorities, or of local authorities?
	In the detailed explanatory note that I was sent, as regards the sentence that the council may,
	"acquire and dispose of land and other property",
	it would be helpful to know what constraints exist in that respect. Is it a totally open-ended permissive power to acquire and dispose of land and other property? What accountability would exist in that respect?
	Paragraph (2)(b) of the note is headed "enter into contracts". In this paragraph the noble Lord says,
	"FEFC contracts worth over £20,000 are normally listed in their annual report. As private companies TECs have entered into a variety of contracts with training providers, and others such as local authorities, and local partnerships involved in promoting training and employment".
	I understand the need to enter into contracts, but what public accountability will be available? Indeed, who is liable? Where does the responsibility lie?
	The next paragraph is headed,
	"invest sums not immediately needed for the purpose of exercising its other functions".
	Interestingly, it says:
	"Public funds paid to the LSC will normally rest in a Paymaster General account until disbursed to providers. It may be necessary for some funds to be held in other bank accounts so as to be readily available for day-to-day purposes, e.g. petty cash. Such accounts may be interest bearing".
	Who decides the funds that are to be deposited with the Paymaster General and the funds that are to be held? What control will there be over the amount to be held? The example given is petty cash, but what other examples are there? As I said, what rules will govern that?
	The note goes on to say:
	"As private companies, TECs are able to invest any funds".
	Invest any funds in what? Stocks and shares? I shall ask a question about that issue later. It goes on:
	"If the LSC receives funds from sources other than Grant in Aid it must be allowed to use these to the best effect, subject of course to standard financial control provisions applying to NDPBs, so as to maximise the resources available to secure delivery of its objectives".
	Again, how will it know when such moneys are available for investment and what kind of investments will be available?
	Paragraph (d) refers to financial "gifts". What kind of gifts? Again, where gifts are received, what accountability will there be for the acceptance of them? There is a reference in paragraph (e) to "gifts of land and other property", where the same points apply.
	But the council has no power to borrow money. Interestingly, the TECs had power to borrow money. So what makes the councils different from the TECs in this regard? The TECs had a great deal of flexibility. Are the Government to argue that the TECs abused or misused their powers? I do not believe that that will be the case. But it would be helpful to know why the TECs, with their great flexibility, are being swept away, and why the LSC will not be given that flexibility. What will be the restrictions on the council? Can the Minister say how the TECs operated under these powers and whether there were any problems?
	The council does not have power to lend money unless, of course, the Secretary of State consents. The note states:
	"TECs have the power to make loans in furtherance of their objectives".
	Sometimes that is quite important.
	"In the past loans have been made to training providers who have been experiencing short-term cash flow problems and to local partnerships or community groups where, for example, funding will be available from the European Social Fund but not until after set-up costs have been incurred".
	What will happen to those people in the future? TECs will not be around; they will not be able to do that. If the power is not to be transferred to the councils, what will happen to training providers experiencing short-term cash flow problems? Will they have to go through a bureaucratic procedure to the Secretary of State?
	Paragraph (3)(c) states that the council will have no power to hold shares in a company or to become a member of a company. The note continues:
	"Unlike the FEFC which had no such express power, TECs with their standing as private companies were able to set up subsidiary and associated companies. However, contractual conditions operate to ensure that public funds are not put at risk as a consequence of the organisation incurring liabilities in respect of any other company. Many training and enterprise councils have significant holdings in, for example, Careers Service Companies which may be jointly owned by the TEC and the local authority. TECs may also be stake holders in companies set up to deliver other government measures such as the New Deal. Where the LSC can demonstrate benefits arising from participation in another company the Secretary of State will not ... withhold his consent".
	Again, the TECs did not have to go through this bureaucratic system. However, it looks as though the local skills councils will, making it a much clumsier arrangement. One wonders why a framework cannot be laid down within which the local skills councils can operate just as the TECs did. There are constraints; there is a great deal of bureaucracy; and there will be a built-in institutional delay. Regrettably, the powers of the TECs are not being replicated. I wonder why. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, in a tour de force the noble Baroness has asked the Government a stack of questions. I cannot pretend that I shall be able to answer all of them this evening. I thought that it was a good idea to send her a letter. I am not quite so certain now. We believe that the letter set out clearly the points that really matter. So we are rather surprised that the noble Baroness has moved this amendment to have Clause 18 removed entirely. Perhaps it is a vehicle for her questions.
	As we indicated in Committee, our starting point in framing these provisions has been the supplementary powers currently available to both the FEFC and the HEFC, as set out in the 1992 Act. I gave more detail in the letter, a copy of which is available in the Library.
	The clause gives the LSC the powers it needs to acquire and dispose of land and other property, for example, computers and furniture, for its own use; enter into contracts with third parties, such as training providers and local authorities; hold small cash balances as petty cash and invest sums it may receive from sources other than grant-in-aid; accept financial resources other than grant-in-aid, for example, from the European Union or in partnership arrangements with the private sector; and accept gifts of land and other property from any other sources.
	The council will have no power to borrow money because it will be a non-departmental public body under Treasury control--unlike the TECs which were private companies so no such restriction on borrowing could occur. However, the council, with the Secretary of State's consent, will be able to lend money. It is obvious that it might want to lend money, for example, to local partnerships or community groups where funding will be available from the European Social Fund but not until set-up costs have been incurred. Alternatively, it might help training providers who have been experiencing short-term cash flow problems.
	The council will also be able to become a member of a company, again with the Secretary of State's consent. That is an important flexibility currently enjoyed by TECs which will enable the learning and skills council to play a much more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils.
	The LSC may need to use that power to take part in local economic development or regeneration initiatives where a company structure is helpful in levering in wider resources. But we should not regard such arrangements as being widespread or the norm, nor do we want the learning and skills council engaging in widespread commercial enterprises. That is why we have made the ability of the LSC to hold shares in a company dependent upon the approval of the Secretary of State. That is an important safeguard, as I hope the House agrees.
	If the noble Baroness is serious in wishing to delete Clause 18 entirely, which she is not, I should then go on to talk about the necessity of the LSC being able to buy paper clips, A4 paper, tea and coffee and all the other attributes of a modern office. The whole point behind Clause 18, and subsection (1) in particular, is to enable the LSC to do what is necessary to carry out its functions as set out in Clauses 2 to 11; namely, the securing of education and training. As I am sure the noble Baroness accepts, Clause 18 is a necessary part of the Bill. As to liability and responsibility, that matter lies with the accounting officer of the LSC.
	The noble Baroness referred to my letter and quoted the words,
	"more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils".
	The point that the letter seeks to make is that that is more important than the FEFC.
	I promise to read in tomorrow's Hansard the series of questions posed by the noble Baroness and, if necessary, to provide the noble Baroness with answers in writing.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and look forward to another detailed missive. It is becoming increasingly obvious that it is a great pity that the TECs are to be dissolved. They have greater flexibility of operation than NDPBs. If the Government had any concerns about them they could have dealt with the matter by modifying or redefining their role. However, they have pressed on with all the flexibility that is now being removed from the system in order to put a straitjacket on the new councils. If business people are to become members of both the national and local councils as the Government intend, they will become frustrated, especially if they are the same people who come from the TECs. They will not have flexibility and will be constrained; and they will also have to deal with a heavy bureaucracy, resulting in delays. Those councils will be unable to keep good business people, and that is very regrettable.
	If the only example that can be dragged up to provide a rationale for the volume of money to be held back is simply the need to buy tea, coffee, paper clips and one or two bits and pieces to keep the office going, that seems to be a pretty poor do, given that all other surplus money to which they do not have immediate access must be deposited. In the light of the fact that I shall receive yet another detailed explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 19 [Local councils]:

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 8, line 33, at end insert ("and a co-ordinating mechanism for the local councils established in greater London").

Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 60 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp. We return to the issue of London and the need for some form of co-ordinating mechanism. We had a fairly full debate on this matter in Committee. The special case for London was then fully made and accepted by the Government and others. In view of the time I do not need to make the special case for London again. Suffice it to say that London is by far our largest city. For the time being it will be the only city region that has an elected mayor and assembly with statutory powers to produce and implement a regional economic development strategy. It will have a single small business service franchise.
	London covers by far the largest travel-to-work area in the country and yet it will be the only city in the country to have more than one local learning and skills council. The nature of London is such that the boundaries of the five local councils will be primarily administrative. On the whole, natural boundaries no longer exist in a big urban sprawl.
	I believe that the case for some form of co-ordinating mechanism is made out. The only reason why the Government have accepted the need for five local councils within London is that by a narrow margin that was the recommendation of the London Development Partnership, with the proviso that there should be a strong co-ordinating body. I am in some difficulty here. The more I look at the role, functions and need for a co-ordinating body the more convinced I become that all this would be unnecessary if we simply had one learning and skills council for London. That would remove Ministers' fears about unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, the need for co-ordination and so on. But, surprising as it may seem, I accept that that is not where we are now. The Government have made clear that London is to have five local learning and skills councils. I think the Government have accepted the need for a co-ordinating mechanism. The Minister has made clear--I have some sympathy with the point--that she does not want another layer of bureaucracy and administration.
	The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, I believe that some reference to the need for a co-ordinating mechanism for London should be on the face of the Bill. I say that from long experience in London politics. I was an opposition leader on a London borough council in the years running up to the abolition of the GLC. I became, coincidentally, a London borough council leader in the month that the GLC was abolished. One of my many early duties on behalf of my party was to try to establish some method of running London in the post-GLC period. I remember that only too vividly.
	It may be obvious to most, if not all, of us now that there needs to be some co-ordinating mechanism in London between the five LSCs; and that that is best left to them to sort out. In a properly ordered world, I am sure that is the case. But I remember 15 or so years ago a strong prevailing view in London that no such entity was necessary; that London was a collection of villages (rather large villages perhaps); that there was no such single entity as London and therefore any such co-ordination should be kept to the absolute minimum.
	I realise that it is hard for the Government to contemplate, but there may come a day when they are no longer in power. There may come a day when the view which prevailed 15 years ago will return. Indeed, the choice on 4th May of the person I suspect is likely to be elected mayor may hasten that day. I believe it necessary to have the safeguard on the face of the Bill. There needs to be a co-ordinating mechanism. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, moved a detailed amendment about the nature, membership and purpose of that co-ordinating committee. I have deliberately not done so. First, I do not think that the Government will accept it. Secondly, I am not sure that it is appropriate.
	However, the second reason for moving the amendment is to press the Government a little further on what they envisage the role of the co-ordinating mechanism to be; and how and when they believe that it will come into existence. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of her intentions in this respect. I am aware that the London TEC and others are working out options and proposals for a light touch co-ordinating mechanism to respond to the Minister's recognition of the need, but concern to avoid another layer of bureaucracy. I know that the matter will be discussed by the London Partners group. I shall be interested to know when and how any such agreed proposals will be implemented. Do the Government envisage implementing them in time for the creation of the LSCs on 1st April next year; or do they intend to wait until the national and local LSCs are established and running so that those LSCs can determine the mechanism? In that case, the system is unlikely to co-ordinate until nearly half-way through the mayor's first term. That would be a serious setback for London, which is working reasonably well under the circumstances.
	I move the amendment for two reasons. First, I want the safeguard of having the provision on the face of the Bill so that, if so minded, future governments cannot do away with the system without legislation. Secondly, and with a little more hope of success, I hope to receive from the Government a clearer and more up-to-date view of the exact role and functions of the co-ordinating mechanism; and when they envisage having it in place. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we discussed the same amendment in Committee and I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Lord because I am able to add little to what I said in that debate.
	The solution that the London Development Partnership recommended for local arrangements in London was, as the noble Lord rightly noted, five local councils with a co-ordinating mechanism to ensure that the pan-London issues were dealt with effectively. I am happy to reiterate that we accept the recommendation and I am equally happy to place on record my commitment to making the arrangement work in practice.
	I have something in common with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I, too, in an earlier life was involved in post-GLC arrangements. In my case, it was trying to ensure that the ILEA, as it then was, was able to continue to operate and had in place the services which it had acquired from the GLC when the GLC was abolished. Therefore, I know what the noble Lord is talking about.
	However, I do not believe that we need a provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that we have a proper co-ordinating mechanism. We have set out in the prospectus how we shall capitalise on the benefits of a strong national council and strong local councils. The Bill allows the council to delegate to local arms the appropriate powers and to establish other committees as it sees fit.
	The light-touch mechanism which the London Development Partnership recommended, and to which the noble Lord referred, should be a matter for the LSC and its local councils to determine in order to meet London's needs. The exact form which the co-ordinating body in London will take has not yet been agreed. That will be for the LSC to determine, together with the five local London councils. However, we anticipate that it will be an internal LSC working group acting as a light-touch mechanism. I envisage the five London councils using it as a forum to agree common approaches to collective problems and then to inform the LSC's wider planning in London.
	We also expect the London regional economic strategy to feed into the discussions of the group and the group to have a channel of communication to wider partners in the London theme. The boundaries of the local LSCs are not specified in the Bill. They may change somewhat in future. It is not inconceivable that the consensus might change and that the need for a co-ordinating mechanism might no longer exist. So there is no advantage in putting the provision on the face of the Bill. I am not saying that I anticipate such changes, but I am saying that if there were to be such changes, and if we accept the amendment, the situation would be inflexible and the law would have to be changed.
	I hope that with my repeated commitment to ensuring that such a mechanism is effectively established, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but it has not taken us much further. I was aware of her experience in the ILEA, although I would not be so unkind as to draw attention to it. All I would say is, "Look at what happened to the ILEA". If I cannot convince her of the need for reassurance in the Bill, so be it. I am sad. She rightly says that there is no provision in the Bill for the boundaries of the local LSCs--I know and recognise that--and that circumstances could change and there may be no need for a co-ordinating mechanism. The only way in which that can occur is for the Government to make the right decision and to have only one LSC for London. In that case, it can co-ordinate with itself. The provision in the Bill may then be unnecessary, but it would not make it impossible to work. Therefore, I cannot accept her argument
	I am not entirely surprised that the Minister was not prepared to put the provision on the face of the Bill. However, I listened to, and shall read carefully, what she said about the co-ordinating mechanism. My understanding is that the London Development Partnership did not ask for a light-touch co-ordinating mechanism, but for a stronger co-ordinating body. It has simply accepted that the Minister is not prepared to let us have that.
	From what I understood of her reply, the noble Baroness suggested that the real work and the decisions on this matter will not get under way, and certainly will not be in place, until the local LSCs are up and running, working together and in a position to reach a decision on the best co-ordinating mechanism. As they do not come into being until April 2001 and it will be some time before they are in a position to make such decisions, I repeat my considerable concern that, whatever the co-ordinating mechanism, which we all accept is necessary for London, it will not be in place and operable until well into the first term of the GLA. I believe that we are missing important opportunities there.
	I have made no secret of the fact that I believe we are making a mistake in the way that we are dealing with this matter. However, there is no need to make it worse. I urge the Minister to think a little more about trying to ensure that when the LSCs come into being in April 2001, as quickly as possible thereafter an effective co-ordinating mechanism is put in place. Thus, the learning and skills councils in London will be able to speak with a strong and united voice in what is likely to be a very lively and quite hard fought debate within London. If we have to wait for months--possibly longer--before they are in that position, I believe that they will get off to an unnecessarily bad start. However, this is not the time to pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 8, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) Not less than 40 per cent. of the members shall include persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 61, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 62, 64 and 65. These amendments very much repeat previous ones. They concern the composition of the local skills councils. Again, I press the Government to place something on the face of the Bill both to recognise the present representation of business and commerce and, of course, to recognise some local democratic representation.
	Secondly, I feel very strongly about Amendments Nos. 64 and 65. It seems to me that the national council will be relatively small. It will comprise between 12 and 16 people, one of whom will be the chairman and one the chief executive. Therefore, one is left with approximately 10 to 14 people. The idea that they should be members of the national council and a local council suggests that we do not have enough people to make a distinctive national council. They will, in any case, be very busy people, heavily involved in their business world or the particular worlds from which they come and from which they will bring their talents and expertise. It seems to me quite outrageous that they should have dual membership with the local skills councils. Therefore, I regard Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 as very important. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, both in respect of the national council and local councils, we have debated a number of times the merits of specifying in legislation the precise details of their membership. Nothing has made me change my mind that it is inappropriate to set out in legislation the proportion of the membership of a public body which should represent any particular group. I know from his comments during the Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, shares my reservations about specifying numbers and proportions on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I reject the suggestion in Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 that we should specify any proportion.
	That is not to say that we are drawing back from our commitment to seek to ensure through the appointment process that we have a membership in which 40 per cent of local council members are people from a business background. That is simply not the case. However, specifying that in law will only (if I may beg the pardon of my noble friend beside me) please the lawyers. With regard to Amendment No. 61, we have repeatedly made clear our commitment that at least 40 per cent of local council members will be people from a business background. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept our assurances on that.
	There is a second aspect to Amendment No. 62 which I cannot accept. We do not want to give nomination rights to any body--to the GLA or anyone else. That would restrict the field of candidates and potentially diminish the quality of candidates. In the appointments process, we want individuals, as I said earlier in relation to the national council, who will serve the interests of the local LSC as a whole and not be representatives or delegates.
	Some noble Lords claimed that there is a disparity in our approach to business and to local government. But let us look carefully at that for a moment. There is a real distinction between local authorities and businesses. Local authorities are statutory bodies which will have close working relationships with the local LSCs at every level. On the other hand, the business world consists of a multitude of individual firms which may have little or no regular contact with the LSCs, yet they represent a vital part of the demand side. That is why we have a policy of providing that 40 per cent of the membership of local LSCs should have a business or commercial background. However, they are not there to represent their own businesses but to bring with them their experience of the business world in all its many forms and interests. Similarly, we expect local councils to have members who understand the needs of local communities through local authority experience. Again, I am happy to repeat that here.
	Amendments Nos. 64 and 65, about which the noble Baroness said she feels very strongly, seek to bar membership of a local council to any member of the national learning and skills council. As I suggested in Committee, having high calibre individuals who are members of councils at local and national level could promote co-operation, some cross-fertilisation of ideas, and enable the national council to have a better understanding of local concerns.
	I want to make it absolutely clear that I regard dual membership as something which is not likely to take place very often and, indeed, as something rather unusual. But we do not want to bar or in any way discourage members of a local council, who may also have an enormous amount to contribute at national level, from becoming a member of the national council. Of course, in making such an appointment, the Secretary of State would have to be thoroughly satisfied that the individual in question had the time to devote to both responsibilities. But that is a standard criterion in any event.
	In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall withdraw my amendment. As regards my amendments dealing with composition, I believe that there is now enough on the record for the Government to be held absolutely to what they have said about that. The business world, and indeed the local government world, will be looking very carefully at how that works out in practice.
	I turn to dual membership. If I were appointing members to the national council, I should be deeply suspicious of anyone who was a member of a local council and also busy in his own right--because I accept that those people will be involved, in some way, in their own sphere. I should be equally suspicious of someone who was a member of the national council who then applied to become a member of a local council. I should be concerned about the amount of time that such people have to give and whether they were anything other than full-time committee gatherers. I regard that as not the most refreshing talent to bring to the national council.
	However, I accept what the Minister said; namely, that that is likely to be a very rare occurrence, if it happens at all. I should like to think that that would be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 8, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) In appointing members of a local council, the Council shall ensure that the majority are representative of different providers of education and training in the area, and of local authorities, and that all members shall have experience relevant to the Council's functions.").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, like those amendments just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, this amendment relates to Clause 19 and the membership of the local learning and skills councils. However, unlike them, it does not specify a proportion of membership. Indeed, it lays down very broad parameters for membership of the council.
	As the Minister knows, on these Benches we are concerned, as we made clear in Committee, that local authorities should be represented on the council. After all, under the current Local Government Bill which has just passed through this House, local authorities have a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area which they represent, and their members are elected to represent the local community. The Minister stressed that the local learning and skills councils should be driven by the needs of local communities and by the local economy. In that sense, the local authority has a community leadership role to fulfil.
	When the amendment was discussed in Committee, the Minister said,
	"We have already set out in the prospectus that we expect local LSC members to understand the needs of employers; employees, through trade union representation; local communities, through local authority experience; people who are disadvantaged or excluded, through voluntary sector experience; young people and adult learners; people with special learning needs, learning difficulties or disabilities; and people who face discrimination".--[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 849.]
	As she said, the aim as set out in the prospectus is that the councils should represent the views of both providers and consumers.
	The amendment does not seek to be prescriptive. It is a general amendment. We are asking for local authority representation, but not for specific representation by a particular interest group. We accept what the Minister says; that the councils should be able to provide vision and leadership. As she says, that is set out in the prospectus itself. However, I should stress that the prospectus is not the Bill. The prospectus has no statutory status. It is aspirational and visionary. As many of us remarked during Second Reading, that vision, sadly, is not represented in the Bill itself. An amendment such as this offers an opportunity to translate a little of that vision into the Bill. For that reason, I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's surprise that Amendment No. 63 appeared on the Marshalled List in the second group of amendments which we debated earlier. I continue to believe that it would have been better to consider it in the context of the amendments dealing with local council membership which we have just discussed, but let us deal with it now.
	I should like to begin by reassuring the House that members of local LSCs will certainly have the expertise and experience required to do their jobs and to do them well. The national council will be looking for no less in making its appointments and the Secretary of State will be looking for no less in approving them. I remind noble Lords also that all appointments to councils, whether national or local, will be carried out through open competition according to Nolan principles.
	I hope that we have already made clear enough our approach to the representation of various interests on both the national council and the local councils. In terms of the amendment, we certainly agree that the views of local learning providers should be represented on the local councils and, as has been pointed out, we made that explicit in the prospectus. We have made it clear that we expect each local council to include at least one member with current local authority experience.
	But the vast majority of those speaking on local councils should speak for the views of the consumers of the learning system; namely, individuals and employers. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment, which could lead to our new system being dominated by the views and needs of providers. I know that a letter was sent by my noble friend Lady Blackstone to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, a copy of which was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has had an opportunity to see it.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Yes, I have.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am glad to hear it. The letter sets out clearly what we say about the matter. It states,
	"You ask for clarification of our intentions in respect of local authority representation on the Learning and Skills Councils. As the LSC Prospectus makes clear, and as I reiterated during Monday's debate, we would certainly expect national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of local communities through current local authority experience. But this is not a matter for legislation. All appointments will be made under Nolan principles. We want to appoint the very best people we can find to the LSC from the candidates who come forward. We want to ensure that all members serve the interests of the LSC as a whole, rather than be representatives speaking on behalf of individual organisations".
	That is a fairly sensible point of view to hold.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I believe that is a sensible point of view. I regret the fact that so much of this is spelt out in the prospectus and not on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that there are aspirations here and it would be nice to see some of them reflected in the Bill. However, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 not moved.]
	Clause 21 [Guidance to local councils]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 9, line 12, at end insert ("and in doing so must confirm the proportion of a local council budget which may be allocated at the discretion of the local council").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 21(1) states that in relation to each financial year of the council it must prepare guidance for each local council and in doing so, the guidance must set a local council's budget for the financial year.
	There was much discussion early on in Committee about the degree of flexibility there would be at local level. If my memory serves me well, I remember Ministers arguing that there would be local flexibility. My understanding is that something like 10 to 15 per cent of financial flexibility was mentioned.
	If I had tabled an amendment to codify 10 to 15 per cent on the face of the Bill, I expect that the Government would have said, "Absolutely not; this is not a matter to put on the face of legislation", and I would agree with that. However, I believe it is right to place an obligation upon the council in setting the budget, when producing the guidance, to confirm the proportion of the budget which may be allocated at the discretion of the local councils. I hope the Minister will find that an attractive proposition. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, local LSCs will ensure that local needs are met through the LSCs' funding and planning systems. The national learning and skills council will allocate the vast majority of its funds to local LSCs. They will have discretion over the allocation of their budgets within the terms of the council's funding methodology.
	We are currently consulting, through the funding and allocations consultation paper, on how the learning and skills councils' funding system should work and what sort of local flexibility would be required. But, as was made clear in Committee, local LSCs will make important decisions about how the LSC's main budgets will be allocated. They will be able to exercise discretion to vary the rate of payment set out in the national tariff. They might do so, for example, where they think that is necessary to address shortages of good quality training for skills which are in particular demand.
	We expect the allocation of resources at local level to follow the pattern of demand by learners. We have also said in the prospectus that the local LSCs will also have substantial discretionary funding which will amount to around 10 to 15 per cent of the overall funding for the learning and skills council. Local learning and skills councils will have a still greater degree of discretion over their allocation. These funds will support activities such as workforce development and improving access to learning and support for the regeneration of local communities. In those ways, local councils will enjoy different amounts of discretion according to the nature of particular activities.
	We believe that it would be impracticable to quantify this in a simpler way--simple in the best sense--as the noble Baroness seeks to do. I would therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find that deeply disappointing. Clause 21(3) states that:
	"The guidance must set a local council's budget for the financial year".
	If a council is setting a specific local council's budget as stated in Clause 21(3)--not across the board--a great deal will be known about that budget unless it is to be so broad brush and crude as to make no sense at all. If it is to make sense at local level there should be some understanding of how much of that allocation is reflecting both what the national council deems it should do with the money and how much flexibility and discretion it will allow the council over the percentage of that allocated budget.
	For the Minister to say that it is not possible to go into that kind of detail means that it will be impossible to determine whether it will be between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. It is important to know at the time of allocation whether it is 10 per cent or 15 per cent. I do not see it as an onerous obligation to have on the face of the Bill that when the guidance sets a local council's budget it should make some reference to the amount of flexibility to be allowed at local level.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked for confirmation of the proportion of a local council's budget. We do not say that that is impossible; rather, it is much too inflexible to confirm the proportion as a percentage figure. That would be inflexible and against the way in which this matter is intended to work.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was in local government long enough to know that, if government said that there was a great deal of flexibility at local level, I was always in a position to say that there was none if that was the situation because everything I had to do was so prescribed that there was not room to exercise local discretion.
	The Government have said quite unequivocally that there will be local discretion between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. I assume that is as regards its budget allocation. If it is to be between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the budgeted allocation, then it seems only fair at the time of allocating it that it is given some indication as to how much of it is prescribed--in other words, what percentage will there be over which local discretion will apply. That appears to be entirely logical. The only time at which that can be ascertained from the national council is when budget allocations are given to local councils. I see no difficulty there at all. The Government are copping out, if I may use a colloquialism.
	On Question, amendment negatived.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Page 9, line 13, leave out ("the regional development agencies and").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be very brief as regards this amendment except to put right something said at Committee stage. In the time between the two stages of the Bill I have yet to do something about it. I never enjoy reading Hansard after I have been speaking. I particularly did not enjoy reading the first paragraph of what I said that evening. I have yet to check the tapes. At col. 860 of the Official Report on 10th February, when referring to regional development agencies, I am alleged to have said,
	"a long time ago, it was the policy of our Benches that there should be unitary authorities at local level".
	I referred to the fact that I was not talking about parish councils, but district councils. Indeed, that is what happened. In parts of the country, district councils became unitary authorities and the county councils were dissolved.
	My mistake is that I went on to say that we agreed that county councils should go and that there should be regional elected bodies. I belong to a party which has never agreed to regional elected bodies. The Minister is looking worried.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can do no other than to say that my understanding of what the noble Baroness said was precisely the opposite of what appears in Hansard. At times the noble Baroness could hardly get out the words "regional development agency", if I may use that expression, because she seemed to be so against them. Indeed, I believe I queried her party's policy on that issue during the course of the debate, so I am with her on this.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am greatly relieved because I only read this two nights ago and had one or two nightmares that the Government were building up a wonderful retort as to how I changed my party's policy on the hoof. It is interesting that nobody in my party picked it up and I have yet to receive the phone calls asking what I am up to.
	Perhaps I can make it clear--the Minister helps me in doing that--that we do not agree with regional elected bodies. It is my recollection that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who was involved in the debate at that time, was very much a supporter of regional elected bodies and, at the same time, of unitary authorities at district level replacing county councils.
	Having got that off my mind, perhaps I can say briefly that it will come as no surprise that I do not believe that there is a hidden agenda. There is now a fairly overt agenda; the paving is well in place for removing local authorities. Indeed, I have it on good authority that a person in No. 10 is alleged to have said that before we are much older, local education authorities will disappear.
	All the way through the Bill one can see the downgrading of local education authorities and local authorities, and the building up of regional development agencies. This will be almost only a stepping stone away from completing the process. I therefore seek to remove references to regional development agencies. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 70 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope.
	Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we do not want to see the elimination of regional development agencies; nor do we at the moment suspect that an unholy plan is arising from No. 10, although on occasion we have doubts about what is happening there.
	Amendment No. 70 relates to Clause 21 and in particular to the question of who the proposed learning and skills council should consult in setting the guidelines that it is to prepare for local councils. Subsection (4) suggests that it should consult regional development agencies and local education authorities on such guidance. The amendment proposes that the council should also consult some of the providers of education and training in the area.
	It seems logical that, given the role of colleges and other specialist providers such as the Careers Service in an area, in setting guidelines such consultation should take place. We are not suggesting that the council should consult every provider but that on occasions it should consult some of the providers. It seems to us to be a perfectly reasonable amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, this is a fascinating debate for late at night and I do not intend to comment about the future in relation to local government. The noble Baroness is making many assumptions and I am not surprised at her concern at being so gravely misquoted in Hansard bearing in mind her strong feelings. I should still like to know whether it is her party's view as well as her own that regional development agencies are a waste of time and should not exist. It would be interesting to know; perhaps we are entitled to know.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have an aversion to elected regional government. I believe that what we have in this and other Bills are pavers for regional elected government.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the position crystal clear.
	We believe it is right that regional development agencies should be involved in shaping the national LSC's guidance to its local arms, as well as in working closely with the LSC in all sorts of ways. After all, an RDA has a statutory duty to,
	"enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in its area".
	What closer connection could there be to the learning and skills council than "skills"?
	It is accepted that there are certain trends and factors which are plain, wider geographical areas than either local authority or local LSC areas. These factors and trends cross boundaries in determining, for example, economic growth. That is why this Government established RDAs. That is why we believe that close working between RDAs and the LSC will be for the benefit of everyone, individual learners, employers, local economies and communities.
	Local LSC areas will not develop in splendid isolation from one another. When making their recommendations for local LSC boundaries, the RDAs did of course reflect issues of economic activity and development. However, as I have tried to set out briefly, some such issues are wider. It is only by engaging at both local and regional level that the full potential of any one area will be released. We cannot accept the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, as I do not think that she will be surprised to hear.
	Amendment No. 70, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, deals with the issue of the national LSC consulting providers on its draft guidance. We want to establish a coherent and streamlined system in which key partners and stakeholders can speak authoritatively on the wide range of interests relevant to the planning and funding of post-16 learning. Clearly, providers of post-16 learning--to whom we assume this amendment is intended to apply--are one such group. They will have important contributions to make at both national and local level. To specify them on the face of the Bill as proposed would be less than meaningful. We ask the question: which providers should the national LSC consult--all several thousand of them or some at random? I assure the noble Baroness that we do not require this amendment to ensure that the LSC takes account, as it will, of the views of learning providers. I hope that on that basis neither of the amendments will be pressed.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am disappointed, as always, but I did not expect to get very far with these proposals. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments No. 70 and 71 not moved.]
	Clause 22 [Plans of local councils]:
	[Amendment No.72 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 9, line 23, at end insert ("which must reflect the skill needs of the local labour market").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, although Amendment No. 73 is grouped with Amendment No. 74, I shall not be moving it. I think that a rogue amendment crept in--two versions of the same amendment. Nevertheless, the meaning is well known. Clause 22 provides that,
	"A local council must prepare a plan for each financial year of the Council".
	That plan must include a statement of the needs regarding education and training of the population of the local council's area. I have added the words,
	"which must reflect the skill needs of the local labour market".
	If there is to be this match between the needs of people-- the whole thrust is to make sure that the business and commercial needs are properly met--there needs to be some reading of those. If there is to be any meaningful plan, it must regard both sides of that same coin. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on Amendment No. 73, I start by reminding the House of the Government's own Amendments Nos. 22 and 37 to Clauses 2 and 3. As has already been discussed, those amendments address the concern expressed in Committee that the Bill should make plain that the LSC's provision should take account of the skill needs of particular sectors of employment. Amendment No. 73 seeks to require that local LSC plans reflect the skills needs of the local labour market. The amendment is simply not necessary. The current provision in Clause 22(2)(a) requires the plans of the local council to include a statement of the needs of the population of its area. The population of a local area includes employers. The needs of the population of a local area include those which relate to the context of the local labour market. A local LSC would simply not be meeting its duty to plan for the needs of the local population if it failed to plan for provision to meet the skill needs of the local labour market. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is again unfortunate that only one side of this coin is being recognised by the Government. Somehow or other it is important to mention one but not to reflect the other. That is unfortunate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 75:
	Page 10, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert--
	("(b) any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4(1) of the Local Government Act 2000.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 refers back to Clause 22 under which the local council must prepare a plan. There are many conditions and criteria for preparing that plan. But it must have regard to,
	"any matter contained in guidance issued by the Council under section 21 (in addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) above".
	The clause goes on to say that it must have regard to,
	"the strategy prepared by any ... regional development agency".
	We are back to regional development agencies. So it will come as no surprise to noble Lords opposite that I wish to see that provision removed from the Bill.
	I believe that the local council should have regard to any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under Clause 4(1) of the Local Government Bill. I am not the only one. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred earlier to the read-across between this Bill and the Local Government Bill. There has not been any serious joined-up thinking about the impact of this Bill and the other Bill and the way in which they inter-relate. It is important that in any planning strategy there should be proper recognition of Clause 4(1) of that Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 75, 78, 79, 81 and 82 deal with removing references to regional development agencies from the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I must remind the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 76 and 77.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in addressing this group of amendments I shall speak first to the government amendments and then respond to the amendments from the noble Baroness.
	In Committee the noble Baroness proposed that the local LSCs should not merely consult local education authorities when preparing their local plans, but all local authorities in their areas. That was in recognition both of the wider concerns for development issues which local authorities might have and their greater strategic role. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, proposed that in consulting local authorities the local LSCs should also take account of the new strategic plans which local authorities will be preparing under the powers contained in the Local Government Bill currently before the House. I agreed that such changes would offer useful improvements to the Bill and the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 77, 80 and 83, give effect to that commitment. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the amendments deliver the more positive aspects of her own amendment, Amendment No. 75, and that she will feel able to withdraw it. I note, however, that her amendment would also remove any requirement on the local LSCs to have regard to the RDAs' strategies. The Government believe--the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear this--that that would be a retrograde step for the reasons set out when we debated the issue in Committee.
	Amendment No. 76 makes a necessary change to the provision requiring local LSCs to have regard to the strategy prepared by RDAs in order to take account of the new arrangements in London. Without this change we would actually exclude London from the scope of this provision, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would find very regrettable, as would I.
	When the noble Baroness brought forward in Committee amendments similar to Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82 she recognised that she would not win many friends in the House. I simply repeat that we cannot ignore the important statutory role that RDAs fulfil and continue to have in identifying skills needs. RDAs' economic strategies are a milestone in the Government's regional development agenda because they provide the framework for identifying skills needs which are essential for the prosperity and sustainable development of their regions. In practice this means that local LSC priorities and plans need to be consistent with RDAs' regional and sub-regional economic strategies.
	RDAs also have an important strategic role in helping to ensure that the new planning and funding arrangements meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy and address the legacy of low skills and disadvantage that many individuals, communities and regions face. This means that local LSCs and RDAs will need to work closely together to share information and economic assessments and ensure that funding decisions taken by the LSC and the RDA are complementary.
	I turn finally to Amendment No. 78. I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Baroness by telling her that I am no more persuaded by her proposals for the local LSCs to have regard to the LEAs' education plans than I was when she made the proposal in Committee. Quite apart from the problem of definition and our reluctance to include more complexity in the planning arrangements, I simply believe that it is unnecessary. The Bill already includes obligations on local LSCs to include in their plans the education and training which LEAs will secure and to consult them in preparing those plans. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the provisions for close co-operation and consultation are more than sufficient to secure the necessary linkages that we all want to see.
	I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment and support the government amendments when I come to move them.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, local government will not be much comforted by that. The LSC will not need to have regard to the local authority plan under the Local Government Act 2000. That seems to me to be absolutely monstrous. Indeed, the command and control nature of this Bill is almost Maoist in its style. There are directions from the Secretary of State, the national council and the regional development agencies. What flexibility will be left at local council level? All will be order, command and conformity with no room left for flexibility.
	There is even a reluctance to match the words, "There will be 10 to 15 per cent financial flexibility". When it comes to asking whether the national council will prescribe that when they come to draw up the budget, the answer is, no, they will not.
	A great many people outside this House will be mystified by some of the wording that appeared in the prospectus and the rhetoric that has been used, and the manifestation of the actual words used in the Bill. They reveal a total reluctance on the part of the Government even to reflect on the points that have been made about the importance of having flexibility for local services providing skills needs for local companies and recognising the new duty which has been placed on local authorities in a Bill which has only just gone through Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said earlier, they have a new duty to be concerned about the economic well-being of their local areas, but they will not have the wherewithal or the flexibility to influence that duty in any way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
	Page 10, line 1, leave out from ("strategy") to end of line 2 and insert ("of any relevant regional development agency prepared under section 7 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 or published under section 7A of that Act").
	Page 10, line 2, at end insert--
	("(c) any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (strategies for promoting well-being).").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 10, line 5, leave out ("education").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 10, line 26, at end insert--
	("(d) "local authority" means a local authority as defined in section 1(a) of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority;
	(e) a local authority is a relevant authority if any of its area falls within the area of the local council concerned.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Directions]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 86:
	Page 11, line 5, at end insert ("; and the directions may include any provisions described in subsections (2) to (2B)").
	Page 11, line 6, leave out ("include") and insert ("contain").
	Page 11, line 10, at end insert--
	("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Council--
	(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or
	(b) has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act.
	(2B) In such a case directions may contain such provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties.
	(2C) Directions may contain provision described in subsection (2B) despite any enactment making the exercise of a power or performance of a duty contingent on the Council's opinion.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Page 11, line 12, at end insert (", or
	(b) the reorganisation of education for persons from the age of 16 to 19, where such education is currently the responsibility of the education authority").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with this amendment we return to Clause 25, which I know has been amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. But, unfortunately, it has not been amended in quite the way I expected. I am concerned about the conditions that the Secretary of State can impose on local councils. I believe that the Secretary of State should not have the right to direct that local authorities should close sixth forms.
	The Minister said that the clause could be made clearer. One of those unclear provisions related to some of the conditions that could be placed on a local council and the subjective nature of some of the judgments that would form the foundational basis for any directions made by a Secretary of State, or any conditions laid on a council. I regard that as a serious concern. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we discussed an identical amendment moved by the noble Baroness in Committee. I told noble Lords then that Clause 25 secures the Secretary of State's powers to direct the LSC, as a last resort, where the proper use of large amounts of public funds is in question. I also made it clear that there is nothing novel in such a provision. I also explained that a clear precedent lay in the current direction-making powers of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly in respect of the FEFCs, under Section 56 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
	The noble Baroness has suggested that the Secretary of State would issue directions as a matter of course and that the council would be unreasonably constrained by them and have to make its routine planning in line with them. That is really not the case. However, as a last resort, it is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene to direct the council. As the noble Baroness said, we have already debated government amendments that clarify that the Secretary of State would issue directions if he was satisfied that the council was in breach of any duty under this or any other Act, or had acted, or proposed to act, unreasonably.
	The noble Baroness said that she is particularly concerned to prevent the Secretary of State issuing directions on how the LSC should exercise its functions in respect of any reorganisation of LEA 16 to 19 provision. In this connection, perhaps I should remind noble Lords that the LSC has three main functions in this area: first, it will be participating as a voting member on school organisation committees; secondly, it will be making proposals, where agreed with the governing body and the LEA, for the incorporation of LEA 16 to 19 institutions; and, thirdly, it will be making proposals for the closure of 16 to 19 LEA provision, which Ofsted has found to be inadequate in two consecutive reports. If, for example, the Secretary of State believed on receipt of a complaint from a parent or teacher that the council had acted unreasonably in respect of any of those functions, the government amendments to this clause ensure that he could intervene. However, the amendment of the noble Baroness would prevent him doing so.
	On the previous occasion, the noble Baroness implied that, without her amendment, the Secretary of State would be able to direct the council to take action that would eclipse the responsibilities of LEAs for the 16 to 19 provision that they maintain. I cannot set out more clearly than I have just done the very limited functions that the LSC will have in respect of such provision. In Committee, we debated the way in which even these limited functions come with safeguards. I do not know how to set out more explicitly that the Secretary of State would direct the council in relation to these limited functions only if he believed that the council was acting unreasonably.
	When we last debated this issue, the noble Baroness was also puzzled about how this clause protected public funds when directions may not concern the provision of financial resources in respect of activities carried on by a particular person or persons. I believe that there may be some confusion here. The Secretary of State may certainly give general directions about the use of public funds; and the LSC has powers of its own to ensure that public funds are used properly by individual institutions and providers. We have already debated some aspects of these in relation to Clause 6. The chief executive of the LSC will, of course, have his own personal responsibilities as the accounting officer.
	However, we think that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to tell the LSC how much money should go to a particular provider. That must be a matter for the judgment of the LSC, because it is the LSC that has the duty to make provision. If the Secretary of State could direct the LSC that such and such a college or school should have such and such an amount of money, he would immediately be open to accusations of favouritism and even of political interference. It is quite right that we should separate this out.
	Much the same arrangements apply to further and higher education at present and we think that it is a sensible arrangement. But if there were serious and justified concerns about financial mismanagement which warranted the intervention of the Secretary of State, this would be possible under Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
	I hope that I have now made clear the distinction here. There is a difference between the decision-making required to make funding allocations to individual providers and the action that is required if those funds are considered to be at risk. In these circumstances, and in the light of the explanations that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am becoming almost cynical as we progress through the Bill. It seems that the department works extremely hard to counter any reasonable idea of bringing some clarification and refinement to the Bill. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 26 [Committees]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 88:
	Leave out Clause 26.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have stated my feelings clearly concerning the proliferation of committees and the most unbelievable bureaucracy that the Bill incurs. I do not think that I have come across a Bill that has set up such a bureaucratic superstructure. Clause 26 refers to the power to set up committees.
	The most sensible way for the national council to go about its work would be from time to time to commission specific work to be done, for example reviews, surveys or in-depth thinking about a particular aspect of delivering services to young people and adults below and above the age of 19. It is depressing to see provision for more standing committees. The Bill contains the power to establish a standing committee and also the power to set up any other committees. The provision appears to be open-ended. There is little information on that in the financial memorandum.
	These committees could last for all time. They are proper standing committees. We all know that once a standing committee is set up it will spawn work and certainly a secretariat. It will certainly require support, equipment and accommodation. Endless other people will attend the proceedings as observers. I do not believe that that is the most effective way to look for innovative ideas to develop and provide services for young people and adults. I have a total aversion to setting up standing committees in the way that is proposed and also to the open-ended commitment for the council to set up any number of committees as it wishes.
	There is no reference anywhere in the Bill to a requirement to have regard to the cost of setting up such committees; to the life of such committees; to the number of such committees; or to the number of people who serve on such committees. The Secretary of State has yet another finger in a pie approving the appointments to the committees, the chairmen of the committees and the conditions under which they work. This is another example of the heavy-handed, top down approach with, as I say, yet more bureaucracy. I do not believe that this will genuinely further the needs of young people or of adult learners. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness can get so upset about this part of the Bill so late at night. We had a full discussion at Committee stage about the setting up of these two committees, a young persons' learning committee and an adult learning committee. Her amendments would, of course, also prevent the LSC from setting up any further committees.
	The young persons' committee and the adult committee are necessary to advise the council on how to attain the national learning targets for young people and adults. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she was very worried about the costs that will be associated with these committees. I can reassure her that members of the committees will not be paid a salary; they will receive only allowances of the kind which are necessary to cover their general expenses--for example, to cover the costs of travel and subsistence. We think that that is only reasonable. It is surely right that, where committee members--who will be experts in their field--give up significant amounts of time for the benefit of the public, they are not left out of pocket. If this were not the case, I think it might be unnecessarily difficult for the council to obtain the services of people of the highest calibre, which it surely deserves. The nature, extent and eligibility of committee members for allowances will be under the control of the Secretary of State, not the LSC. He is accountable to Parliament for all his expenditure.
	The amendments would also prevent the LSC from establishing any other committees to advise it on its functions. Given the range and depth of the LSC's responsibilities, we do not think that that is wise. It would seriously impair the decision-making of the LSC and put at risk both its obligations to learners and to the best use of public funds. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she was very concerned that the committees of the LSC could create further committees of their own volition. I am happy to reassure her that that is not the case. Schedule 3 makes clear that the creation of any committees is a matter for the council.
	I regret that the noble Baroness and I will disagree so far as concerns these committees. In the light of the explanation I have given her, I hope she will withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is obviously because of the lateness of the hour that the noble Lord has misunderstood so much of what I have said. I said that it is the council that will have the power to set up endless committees. There is no limit on the number of committees it can set up and there is no limit on its budget for setting them up. It simply has the power to set up other committees as it sees fit.
	Neither my amendments nor the way I spoke to them would inhibit work from being done. My suggestion was that the council should commission specific work. It should determine what it wants to look into, what aspects of policy it wants to develop and what innovations should be considered. If specific work was commissioned, once it had been done the people carrying it out could be stood down and that would be the end of the matter. That would be a much better way. Volunteers could still be engaged to do that work and be paid on the basis suggested by the noble Lord for paying members of the standing committees. If I thought that the noble Lord would even partly accommodate my putting forward an amendment along those lines, I would do so in order to make it absolutely clear that I am not leaving a vacuum so far as concerns Schedule 3 and Clause 26.
	It is all very well for the Minister to say that the members of the standing committees will be paid only out-of-pocket allowances for travelling, food and subsistence--of course that will be the case. But they will be serviced by a fully-paid secretariat and supported by fully-paid scribes, who will have to print agendas, liaise with other bodies and communicate on their behalf. There will be a good number of fully paid people. We shall stand back and watch with interest as they appear.
	We shall be interested to know where they will come from. At the risk of some irritation to the Government, I return constantly to the matter of the £19 billion. During the course of the Bill we have heard much about money that will be taken from the so-called £19 billion over three years. If an issue concerning education needs funding, there is no other source that it can come from. We heard earlier about the new £40 a week for educational maintenance allowances; again, that is making inroads into the £19 billion. Every time that happens, more money is held back from core funding for our schools. It is no surprise that schools are wondering where the £19 billion is going.
	I was deeply disappointed with the answer that I received, but it was no more than I expected. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 3 [Committees (England)]:
	[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
	Clause 30 [The Council]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Page 12, line 19, leave out ("not less than 10 and not more than 12") and insert ("up to 16").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, your Lordships considered two of these amendments, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, at a late hour on the second day in Committee. They did not find favour with the Government, although there are clearly strong arguments for making the membership of the council for education and training for Wales (CETW) commensurate in size, not only with the LSC, its English equivalent, but also with the 47 English regional councils. That is the aim of those two amendments. Amendment No. 90 is new, and specifies a maximum number of members--at 16, equal to the maximum of the English councils.
	The case for parity between national councils in England and Wales is very strong. The duties and responsibilities of both national councils are much the same and so are the diverse interests for which they will have to cater: sixth-formers, further education students, their teachers and lecturers, local education authorities and colleges, training providers and employers, actual and potential, in the public and private sectors. Additionally, there is a string of bodies, from the Welsh Development Agency to the TUC, which will have an input.
	I do not expect all those bodies to be directly or indirectly represented but their educational achievement and skill needs and those of the public and private sector concerns with which they are involved must be fully understood, appreciated and taken into account. Why it should be thought that Wales can make do with a smaller council than England in these circumstances frankly defies my understanding.
	In Committee, the Minister referred to the geographical disparity between England and Wales, but at the same time she wisely acknowledged the diversity of interests within Wales. They will rightly expect their needs, which reflect those of one of the poorest regional economies in the United Kingdom, to be attended to. I must remind the House that a substantial part of Wales, the Valleys and the western parts, now meet the criteria for Objective 1 status, which means in brief that their GDP is below 75 per cent of the European average.
	There is an enormous amount of work to be done in the education and training field in Wales if our economy is to thrive and our young people are to stay put rather than leave for greener pastures. "Depopulation" is a very ugly word in Wales, and we do not want to see a repetition of it.
	There are other peculiarities in the Welsh scene that justify parity of membership between the two national councils. Let me preface my summary of them by saying that I do not argue for parity for its own sake; that is, just because England has a council of 12 to 16, Wales must have the same as a matter of right or pride. If the Welsh council could perform its tasks with fewer, I should be more than content. But I do not believe that it can, and there's the rub. Here we are, writing the minimum and maximum numbers into the Bill until such time as there is another Bill on these matters, which may be some years hence.
	The great underlying difference between England and Wales so far as the Bill is concerned is that provision for business and employer interests has been made for England but not in Wales. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the chairman of the LSC will have business experience and it is intended that about 40 per cent of the membership will be similarly qualified. We know that some of the functions of the training and enterprise councils in England are to be transferred to the Small Business Unit. That is a reasonably promising scenario. I regret to say that the Welsh scene is not so promising and that there is grave danger that our young people will suffer in consequence.
	At worst, the charge in Wales is that the Assembly is unfriendly towards business. Whether that is true or false, the Assembly would be wise to counter it, as one Member of the administration, Mr Tom Middlehurst, has already done. But more than words will be needed to establish beyond doubt that the council will not have a built-in public sector institutional bias which may cause it to fail to meet employers' needs for skills. The CBI put the position as follows:
	"The new system will succeed or fail to the extent that it involves and meets the needs of employers. Employers depend on a skilled workforce to survive and prosper--they are the ultimate customers of the system. They are important partners as well--in making apprenticeship and trainee places available, in providing labour market information to help individuals choose the best education and training for their employability and in developing young people's employability through education business links. Employers are the primary source of training investment. All this does not only apply to England--it also applies to Wales. The current proposals in Wales do not encourage employers to become involved. They could lead to an ineffective supplier-led system which fails to promote economic growth and employment".
	That is a very serious piece of criticism which must be heeded.
	Employers must be present within the council itself to ensure that there are policies in place to meet their requirements. The problem of regaining their good will is compounded by the fact that no firm decision has yet been taken about the future location of the various roles of the soon-to-be-abolished TECs. That issue is now to be considered at a leisurely pace by the Assembly's Economic Development Committee.
	I do not attempt to put into the Bill the 40 per cent business membership requirement for which the CBI has pressed. That proposal was rejected outright by a vote in the Assembly and I have no wish to defy that decision. However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal, as I suspect do the Government because they have given assurances on that score as far as concerns England.
	During proceedings in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is now in his place, took the line that we should leave all these matters to the Assembly. We have no option but to do so. However, in this piece of primary legislation we can ensure that the Assembly is not so constricted and that it has scope with regard to the membership of the council. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 90 which would allow up to 16 members, as in the case of the English council. Incidentally, I have scoured the proceedings of the Assembly and of the Post-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee and can find no substantial discussion of the size of council required to enable it adequately to perform its functions.
	There are two other distinctive aspects of the Welsh scene that I mention briefly. First, the Welsh council will continue to have oversight of the higher education sector. That is totally different from the position in England. I entirely approve of that decision, not least because I had a hand in joining the funding of further and higher education in Wales eight years ago. But it means that the council will have control of a very large sum of money which is estimated by Professor Kevin Morgan to be about 10 per cent of the entire budget of the Assembly, and bigger than that of any other quango in Wales.
	Secondly, it is laid down in the Bill that if the Assembly decides that there should be subsidiary regional councils or committees--the possibility is that there will be four--their chairmen will automatically be members of the main council. That will reduce the remaining membership to between six and eight. Such numbers will be totally inadequate and will result in an oligarchic set-up which will please no one. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 90 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 91 or 92.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for approaching me some days ago to discuss his proposed amendments. It has given me the opportunity to consider the very persuasive case he has advanced and to consult my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly.
	Having considered the matter in depth, I do not consider that the right approach is simply to compare ourselves with the English regional councils. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has not suggested that we should, but there is always a danger of saying, "If England has something, Wales has to have the same". It is not a representative body in the sense that people will be specifically mandated to speak for particular points of view. We need to strike a balance between the public sector and the institutional bodies, and the business sector. Although the CBI in Wales is pressing for that 40 per cent proportion of the council, that is not a proper approach. A balance is required.
	At the back of my mind is the argument that was always put against devolution in Wales: that we were simply creating jobs for the boys. So a balance has to be struck between the number of new positions created and the effectiveness of the organisation. I do not dissent from the government view that a council of 10 to 12 members will be effective and will not seem to the people of Wales merely to be creating new quango places.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for discussing the matter with me. However, I regret that on this occasion I cannot support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am particularly pleased that at 18 minutes before midnight I am still able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on his birthday. I feared that it was not going to be possible to do so.
	We have already debated Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 in Committee and while I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, considers that membership of between 10 and 12 is too small to reflect the diversity of bodies with a close interest in post-16 education and training, we cannot agree with his assessment. We have considered the issue and are convinced that this number will be sufficient for the Assembly to ensure that all the key stakeholders in Wales are represented, in particular within the framework identified by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Although the legislative powers of the Assembly relate only to secondary legislation, we must acknowledge that the devolution settlement puts the Assembly in a far better position than we at Westminster in assessing how many members will be needed to ensure that the education and training needs of the people of Wales are met.
	The amendment would bring the number of council members in Wales in line with the number in England. But in Wales, the council's budget for post-16 learning, including school sixth form funding, will be in the region of £400 million--compared with the learning and skills council budget of some £6 billion in England. The post-16 population in England is around 40 million, more than 16 times that in Wales. The CETW will be responsible for a fraction of the number of providers compared with the LSC. Given these facts, it is eminently sensible that the LSC should have more members than the CETW, just as the existing FEFC for England has more members than its counterpart in Wales. With regard to the point made about the new council and higher education, the HEFCW will remain the same.
	Although the local LSCs in England would vary considerably in terms of the population covered, they, like their parent body, will also have a membership of between 12 and 16. But comparing local and national arrangements in England with those in Wales is inappropriate. In Wales there will be voluntary local partnerships of providers and others who will work together to help the CETW--as remitted by the National Assembly--to plan the delivery of high quality provision. The size of these community consortia will vary from locality to locality and it is possible that some may exceed 16 members in certain areas of Wales. Given the entirely different roles planned for the CETW and these local partnerships, the membership of the community consortia has no bearing on what is appropriate for the National Council for Wales.
	In Committee in this House, and again tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, expressed concern that if the four regional committees of the CETW are established, each chairman will be a member of the national council, limiting to between six and eight the number of remaining places on the board to represent the full range of interests. This simply will not be the case. The National Assembly will appoint members of the council with relevant expertise and experience from the wide range of interests associated with post-16 education and training. From that membership, should the CETW decide to establish regional committees, the new council will appoint four of its members to take on the additional role of chairing its regional committees.
	The noble Lord's alternative amendment, No. 90, would remove the requirement for a minimum number of members and bring the maximum number in line with that for the LSC in England. It is essential that the minimum number of members is specified to ensure that the Welsh council will be of a sufficient size to ensure that it has the breadth and depth of knowledge and expertise required to fulfil its functions. However, for reasons that I have explained, we have concluded that a maximum membership of 12 will be sufficient.
	At this stage, it is not for me to comment on remarks made about the proceedings followed by the Assembly in consideration of these matters. With regard to the point raised about TECs, the position is complex. Therefore, the Assembly will give careful consideration. I hope that I have addressed all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and that in the light of my reply he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tackling head on the points I made. Of course I accept the differences in size of population between England and Wales. However, the functions, duties and responsibilities of the national councils are much the same. It is my contention that the Welsh council must be of a size similar to the English national council.
	I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the role of the regional committee chairmen, if they are established. I understand that they will be drawn from membership of the main council. They will have a difficult task playing both roles and we shall have to see how they are able to carry that out.
	My own view is that the smaller Welsh council has a very difficult, if not impossible, task. When Dr Johnson was composing his dictionary, it was pointed out that 13 Frenchmen were composing an encyclopaedia. Dr Johnson turned upon his informant and said, "It only goes to prove that one Englishman is worth 13 Frenchmen". I do not believe that in Wales we have ever claimed that 12 Welshmen are worth 16 Englishmen--certainly not on the rugby field, according to the latest match result. However, I reiterate that the council will have a very difficult task.
	Although it is not yet the delightful hour when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, celebrates his birthday, I shall wish him a very happy birthday in advance and withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
	Clause 31 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:
	[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Page 13, line 6, at end insert--
	("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
	Clause 32 [Education and training for persons over 19]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 13, line 35, at end insert--
	("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
	Clause 41 [Persons with learning difficulties]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 99:
	Page 17, line 13, leave out ("and 32") and insert (", 32 and 34(1)(g)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Disabled persons]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Leave out Clause 42 and insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
	(" .--(1) In exercising its functions the Council must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity--
	(a) between persons of different racial groups,
	(b) between men and women, and
	(c) between persons who are disabled and persons who are not.
	(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year of the Council it must publish a report containing--
	(a) a statement of the arrangements made under subsection (1) and having effect in the year;
	(b) an assessment of how effective the arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.
	(3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which the Council has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).
	(4) The Council must send a copy of the report to the National Assembly.
	(5) "Racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.
	(6) Disabled persons are persons who are disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 101, as an amendment to Amendment No. 100, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 100 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Directions]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 104:
	Page 18, line 31, at end insert ("; and the directions may include any provisions described in subsections (2) to (2B)").
	Page 18, line 32, leave out ("include") and insert ("contain").
	Page 18, line 36, at end insert--
	("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the National Assembly is satisfied that the Council--
	(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or
	(b) has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act.
	(2B) In such a case directions may contain such provision as the National Assembly thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties.
	(2C) Directions may contain provision described in subsection (2B) despite any enactment making the exercise of a power or performance of a duty contingent on the Council's opinion.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Committees (Wales)]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Page 64, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, as I said earlier, in the business world in Wales there is growing concern about the absence of commitment, in this case to regional committees. That is highlighted by the option given to the council as to whether or not to establish such committees.
	During the Committee stage of this Bill, I quoted the CBI brief at col. 902 of the Official Report for 10th February. Those words still stand and I shall not repeat them. Naturally, as I do, the CBI contrasts the provisions made for Wales with those made for England, and the contrast is glaring. The English structure of a national council with local councils allied to it is clear, firm and businesslike. Only today we have heard about the important role that local councils are to play in England in relation to new Clause 14. There is a similar new clause for Wales--Clause 100--which relates to equality of opportunity. However, there are no executive councils to carry that out at local level.
	Therefore, as I said, the Welsh structure, by contrast, is, frankly, wishy-washy and indecisive. There is a looseness about it which reeks of a laxity of thought and the fear is that that will persist and permeate the implementation of the Bill and its operation on the ground. That would be disastrous, but such a disaster is now staring us in the face unless the Government make the change which we propose.
	Of course, the Government's view is that they should not tell the Assembly what to do. But they have not been averse to doing so in the Local Government Bill, which received its Third Reading in your Lordships' House at the end of last week. The word "must" is used there in relation to the assembly. In Clause 45, it states that the Assembly "must" provide a model code of conduct for councillors. So the Government should have no qualms about using that word again as proposed in my amendment.
	The position with regard to regional committees is made more ambiguous by the fact that it is believed to be the intention of the assembly to establish such committees. Indeed, in our Committee, the Minister said that,
	"the National Assembly recognises the key input of the business sector and has pledged that each regional committee will have a chairman with a solid business background".--[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 905.]
	In view of what she has just said, that means that there should be at least four members of the council with a solid business background.
	But it will not be easy to find such people of real worth when business people realise that the regional committees in Wales are to be purely advisory and different from the local councils in England, which will have executive powers. But of course that is a separate issue.
	The point I wish to make now, even at this late hour, is that there is a body of opinion in the Assembly, not necessarily of my party-political persuasion, which realises the need for regional committees. But there is a lack of wholehearted commitment to them. I believe that the Government would be wise to give the necessary leadership in this Bill and resolve in advance the difficulties which will otherwise arise.
	Among the novel ideas developed in Wales as a result of extensive consultation and deliberations by the Assembly's post-16 education committee is that there should be what are called community consortia for education and training. I understand that there will be about 15 of them. They are the subject of my second amendment, Amendment No. 106.
	The Minister described them with admirable clarity at 12.30 in the morning. She said:
	"However, local consortia will not be part of CETW. They will be voluntary partnerships of education and training providers, employers and others which will help plan the delivery of post-16 learning in their areas. The distinct components of the consortia will have equal status and will be funded directly by CETW".
	She went on to say:
	"The CETW will be tasked by the National Assembly with deciding the actual size, boundaries and composition of community consortia, but it is the National Assembly's intention that no single interest will dominate. Community consortia partners, including employers and voluntary sector representatives, will together plan the provision for their local areas".--[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 907.]
	I can add to the Minister's statement that the concept has been endorsed by the post-16 committee of the assembly and the relevant Assembly Secretary has been asked to produce a framework for the establishment of the consortia.
	But it will astonish your Lordships, as it astonished me, that those community consortia, which are clearly to be an important feature of education and training in Wales are nowhere mentioned in this Bill. They are to be non-statutory but in receipt of public funds and therefore, I presume, accountable for their spending. They will not be an arm or section, but the council will set them up and decide their scope and composition and they, in turn, will plan provision for their area. But they do not seem to deserve a mention in the Bill. I have sought to remedy the situation by simply including them among the committees that the council may establish so that they may have some status, however casual, and recognition of their existence, if not of their potentially important role. But it is not to be unless the Government reject the advice to resist the amendment.
	I must say that the consortia are not alone in being left out of the Bill. The task force, to quote the Minister,
	"will advise on the practical measures which can be taken to ease skills shortages, to improve the extent and quality of learning in the workplace and to ensure that providers of education and training are responsive to the skills needs of employers and individuals".--[Official Report, 10/2/2000; cols. 907-8.]
	That, to my mind, is a major remit. The body which has it should have its place in the Bill. But your Lordships will no doubt be told that the task force will work for the council and whatever needs to be done will be done by the council, which is the fons et origo of all executive power under the Assembly. But I wonder what will happen if the task force fails in the proper execution of its remit. It is non-statutory and there is no remedy against it. That is part of the worrying dissemination of ministerial power to arbitrarily appointed people which, I fear, is rampant in the Government and will result in serious embarrassment sooner or later.
	I am sorry to say that the picture of the future governance of education and training in Wales, which is emerging from our discussion on the Bill, is far from clear. The one thing that is clear to me is that there is a great deal of confusion and muddle. There is to be a strongly centralist council which may, or may not, but probably will establish regional committees with no real powers, which are advisory only, and voluntary, non-statutory, community consortia with an important planning and delivery role and a national advisory task force jogging the pantomime horse along. I have the gravest doubts as to whether it will work. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I cannot imagine a more genial way of spending the vanishing moments of my birthday than discussing the Learning and Skills Bill in your Lordships' House with particular reference to Wales. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for their good wishes. I wondered whether I might turn into a pumpkin as the notes of Big Ben struck.
	Here again, I have had the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues. As I have said before--I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to my remarks--we on these Benches are anxious that the National Assembly for Wales should retain maximum flexibility. Indeed, it was noticeable that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, moved an amendment not so long ago to omit the whole of Schedule 3, she called for that very flexibility in her argument. When one considers Schedule 3, the first thing which strikes me is that the word "must" appears in paragraph 1(1)(a). The council in England,
	"must establish a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee".
	That may be good enough for England, but the National Assembly for Wales requires the maximum amount of flexibility in order to determine what is best for Wales, having regard to the needs of Wales as the National Assembly sees it.
	We recognise the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, but it is on principle that we oppose the amendment. As for the further amendment, which refers to community consortia, we are glad that that is a matter which the National Assembly has in mind. Clearly, community consortia will provide useful functions in post-16 education in Wales. We look forward to their being established. But we see no need for them to be marked out in the Bill itself.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it was for us, too, a pleasure to share the closing moments of the noble Lord's birthday. He says that he could not think of a better way to spend it. Had it been a year later, I am quite sure I would have given way to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who instead of singing some Gilbert and Sullivan could have sung a Beatles' song in celebration!
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, tabled these amendments in Committee. As then, I urge him to withdraw them. As both the noble lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I made clear at that time, and as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made clear tonight, the provisions in the Bill reflect the will of the National Assembly which derives from thorough and careful consideration in Wales of the arrangements for the CETW's committees.
	The preference of the National Assembly is for the CETW to have a permissive power giving it the maximum flexibility to determine its own organisational structures to suit the particular circumstances in Wales. The Assembly has, however, made plain its expectation that the new council will indeed establish regional committees. The Bill reflects the Assembly's wish to work co-operatively with the CETW in the interests of the people of, and local circumstances in, Wales rather than by imposing inflexible structures on it. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to recognise the Assembly's wish and to withdraw his amendment.
	I think that the noble Lord may have misheard me on the question of appointment by the Assembly of members of the council to chair bodies. The National Assembly will appoint members of the council with relevant expertise and experience from the wide range of interests associated with post-16 education and training.
	Amendment No. 106 was also discussed in Committee and I have little to add to what I said at that time. The underlying principle of the community consortia, as endorsed by the National Assembly in its plenary debate of 1st February this year, is that they should be voluntary partnerships of existing education and training providers, rather than arbitrarily enforced alliances whose functions are specified and members appointed by the council. It would be wholly inappropriate to bring community consortia within the scope of the CETW's powers in that way. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to withdraw his amendment.
	The noble Lord also raised the issue of the task force. I can assure him that the aim is for it to work in partnership across all sectors. Therefore, particularly in Wales, it cannot possibly fail.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am delighted to hear of the Minister's confidence in what is proposed for Wales. I am sorry to say that I do not share it. I regard this as a somewhat messy Bill as far as concerns Wales. It does not reflect in its detail what will happen and how education and training will be provided.
	I am grateful to the Minister for explaining how the regional committee chairmen are to be appointed. I am now clear in my understanding of that position. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that flexibility is one thing; loose thinking, as he knows only too well, is quite another. As I have said, this measure reeks to me of indecision. I am very fearful as to how this will operate in practice. Nevertheless, I have had my say on these amendments and at this hour I am happy to withdraw them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at ten minutes after midnight.